Don McLean: An American Icon in Buffalo, NY

When I heard earlier this summer that Don McLean, an American icon and one of my all-time favorite artists, was going to be giving a concert at nearby Chautauqua, NY, I was thrilled. But before purchasing tickets, I discovered that he would be playing two months later in Buffalo - for free. There was no way I was going to miss the opportunity to see Don McLean in concert, but being a bear of very few bucks, I decided to go to the free concert, foregoing the $30 a ticket price tag for the more intimate location. Mom and Dad did not have to be persuaded to agree that this was definitely worth a two-hour trip.

McLean appeared at Buffalo Place on August 15 as part of the Thursdays in the Square series. Before making our way to the large open area where the concert was held, my family and I had to dodge legions of Christians with large signs proclaiming the imminent end of the world and gospel tracts condemning us for attending this event. I was tempted to protest that Don McLean had once sung for the Pope, but then it occurred to me that these particular Christians may not have been big fans of the Pope either. More than the singer, however, I suspect they were offended by the fact that the series was sponsored by Labatt?s Blue and many of the attendees were watching with a beer in one hand and a cigarette in the other.

I have been to several concerts, and I must say I prefer a contained setting where the audience is sitting down and unable to chatter throughout the concert or blow smoke in the faces of fellow listeners. In order to be heard, McLean had to use such powerful amplifiers that a bit of the musical quality was lost. However, with a crowd this size, it was a very energetic event. At times the excitement was almost palpable, and it was great to see so many people my age getting psyched about Don McLean.

McLean took the stage after being introduced by a representative from the local PBS station. The man, after saying a few things about McLean, gave his name as "Don McNeal," to which McLean answered, "It's McLean, you moron!" My parents and I glanced at one another and wondered if that little snafu was scripted. At any rate, it was soon forgotten as he plunged into a couple of Buddy Holly tunes. Throughout the evening, he played a generous number of songs encompassing a variety of styles.

Some of the stand-out tunes included Crossroads, the melancholy tune from the American Pie album contemplating the journey he has taken in his life; And I Love You So, a sentimental tune recorded by more than a hundred other artists including Elvis; Since I Don't Have You, a wistful song requiring a high vocal range which I first heard sung by Art Garfunkel; In a Museum, a new song for me which equated being placed in a museum with achieving obsolescence; This Little Light of Mine, a sing-along in deference to "the folks across the street"; and Vincent, the exquisite tribute to Vincent Van Gogh which was McLean's second big hit.

The audience was attentive throughout, but when the opening chords to American Pie finally sounded, the crowd went absolutely wild. Everyone got up and began to dance, with some of the younger audience members, freed from their inhibitions by a couple of beers, expressing their approval in a number of creative acrobatic ways. In the building next to the park, dozens of people were sticking their heads and hands out the windows and flicking the lights on and off. And hundreds of voices chimed in on not only the famous chorus, but the verses as well. After finishing the song, McLean leaped into an extended reprise that extended our enjoyment.

He even stuck around after the concert to sign autographs, something I was sure he would not do because of the size of the crowd. I was kicking myself that I did not bring our American Pie album for him to sign, but we bought one of his new CDs and he signed that. Very cool.

I suspect that I would have enjoyed his Chautauqua concert more than the one I attended, primarily because he would not have had to play his music quite so loudly. However, seeing Don McLean is seeing Don McLean, and I am very glad to have had the chance to do it. McLean is one of the greatest singer-songwriters of the century, and his appeal has not dimmed with time.

A Beautiful Movie

Although I usually do not get too excited about awards shows, I looked forward to this year’s Oscars because The Fellowship of the Ring had been nominated so many times. Although the film I was rooting for won four Oscars, it was superceded in many categories by one of two movies: Moulin Rouge and A Beautiful Mind. When the latter took the Oscars for Best Picture and Best Director, I became determined to see it. Now that I have watched it, I still don’t know that I would say it deserved the statue more than Fellowship – I’m rather biased in that area – but it certainly was worth watching.

Based on the life of Dr. John Nash (Russell Crowe), a brilliant but tortured mathematician, Mind chronicles his career from graduate student to Nobel Prize recipient. From the beginning, it is clear that Nash may have a way with numbers, but his people skills are sorely lacking. His first meeting with his peers reveals his awkwardness, which is borne primarily of arrogance. Nash believes himself to be superior to nearly everyone he meets. He sees classes as a waste of time and runs himself ragged trying to come up with a truly original thought.

He is so intent on his work that he would probably destroy himself if not for his “prodigal roommate,” Charles (Paul Bettany). Charles is Nash’s antithesis, a British English major whose effusive personality and party animal tendencies bring Nash out of his shell. Still, Nash sees the world in mathematic terms, and it is during an evening on the town that he finally comes up with the original thought he has been searching for.

Flash forward five years, and Nash finds himself in the undesirable position of sharing his knowledge with “eager young minds.” One particular student decides to unravel the mystery surrounding this eclectic professor. Unintimidated by his standoffish demeanor, Alicia (Jennifer Connolly) sets out on a mission to connect with him. Meanwhile, a trip to the Pentagon leads Nash to become enmeshed in a project far more intrusive than it at first appears. His top secret code-breaking for William Parcher (Ed Harris) of the CIA gradually wears on his psyche, and as his married life with Alicia begins, he becomes caught in a downward spiral culminating in an earth-shattering revelation.

The remainder of the film deals with his upward climb towards normalcy and his unending struggle to do something of significance. Fairly depressing throughout, it still ends on a note of hope. Although the movie deviates significantly from the true story, it gives a suitable sense of the burden Nash has carried throughout his life. Connolly deserved the award she received for her role, and Crowe certainly did a good job, though at times I found his speech almost too mumbly to be intelligible. My favorite character is Charles, who brings much-needed levity and warmth to a number of scenes and balances Nash’s rigidity. When the circumstances of Nash’s life change drastically, he is also involved in what, for me, is the movie’s saddest scene. Ed Harris is appropriately enigmatic as the increasingly sinister Parcher, and Christopher Plummer turns in a fine performance as the psychiatrist Nash never asked for.

I found myself seeing Craig Toomey of Steven King’s The Langoliers in Nash, an arrogant man haunted by his desperation to make something of himself. The film also reminded me of The Sixth Sense in that it delivered a 180-degree twist that I did not anticipate despite thinking I knew what to expect. Finally, the chronicling of this professor’s life from his early twenties to his seventies was reminiscent of Mr. Holland’s Opus.

I did not particularly care for the movie’s Oscar-nominated soundtrack – though I generally like Charlotte Church, this was a bit too much opera for me – and, as I stated earlier, Crowe’s speech was difficult to decipher at times. All in all, however, I found it a very well-crafted movie which was worthy of the acclaim it received.

The Joy of Scrabble

I have already reviewed Scrabble, but when I was invited to participate in this write-off celebrating our favorite games, I knew that Scrabble had to be my choice. So I will be reviewing the deluxe edition of Scrabble, which is much more luxurious and practical than the original version. But first, a word or two about the game...

I have always loved Scrabble. My love of words has a lot to do with it, and there is also the thrill of arranging the tiles into a jackpot of points. Scrabble is one of the games we pull out most often, and we even have a notebook where we record our scores, along with the date of the game played. We haven't always kept that kind of a record; that came about a few years ago when I was in a Scrabble-obsessed phase and we played just about every day. Suffice it to say, Scrabble is my friend.

But I hadn't played it all that much recently until a friend of mine reawakened my interest in the game. We had just returned defeated from the college his sister and I attend. The group of us - the three of us and three friends - had planned to play Midnight Bingo, but we arrived to discover that the date had been misadvertised. As we sat at their house pondering what to do, he came up with the idea of playing Midnight Scrabble instead. So it was that we swung by my house to pick up my board and found ourselves starting up a game of Scrabble at midnight.

It was a revamped, revitalized version of Scrabble which reminded me a bit of the Disney commercial with the little girl who changes the rules to the game and ends up spelling
"supercalifragilisticexpialidocious." (Fun fact: That word was in the title of my first review of Scrabble, which was written long before I saw this commercial.) At any rate, the whole point was just to have fun and to prove that board games don't have to be "bored" games. We didn't even bother to keep score, and we created a completely different set of house rules. It was grand.

So I've been on a Scrabble kick lately. And although most of my games at home with my parents have occurred a little earlier in the day and have followed the more traditional rules, I can't forget the impetus for my renewed love of the game. Scrabble: Teenagers (and college folks) think it's cool, too!

Um... That was more than a word. But that's okay. Here's the gist: For anyone unfortunate enough not to know already, Scrabble is a game consisting of a board and a bag full of lettered tiles. In the deluxe version, the tiles are reddish-brown with white lettering. The board is plastic, and each square is set off in a groove. This is a very helpful in preventing the board from being wiped out by a clutzy movement. Also extremely useful is the turnstile underneath the board, which allows players to turn the board towards them on their turn. These special features make it the ideal board to own.

Although any number of house rules can be implemented, as I noted earlier, the basic rules are that each player has seven tiles on a given turn. That player must make a word by building off of a letter already on the board, except for the first word of the game, which must cover the star in the center of the board. The words can go horizontally or vertically, and special spaces on the board add extra points. There is a 50 point bonus for using all seven tiles. Proper nouns and foreign phrases are not officially allowed, though we dispensed with that rule quickly during Midnight Scrabble. When the bag is empty, the first person to use all of his or her remaining tiles collects the points remaining on the other players' trays. Whoever finishes with the most points wins.

However you play it, S-c-r-a-b-b-l-e spells fun, and it?s my pick for favorite game.

Almost Human: Space-Age Pinocchio Seeks Humanity

From the moment I heard of A.I., I wanted to see it. Science fiction - about a robot, no less. I used to spend hours dreaming of building my own robot, and I even tried to start the project a few times before realizing that this was something way beyond my grasp. There is something very intriguing about the idea of an artificially created being wishing to be real. Short Circuit remains one of my all-time favorite comedies, and Data was always my favorite character in Star Trek: The Next Generation. Robots have always fascinated me. There was also Steven Spielberg. I don't like all Spielberg movies - I hated Saving Private Ryan - but usually they have a great deal of heart and ultimately leave me feeling good. But the main reason for wanting to see A.I. was, I'll admit it, Haley Joel Osment. I finally have an answer to that "Who's your favorite actor?" question, and I can't wait to see what he does in the future. I'm hooked on this guy for life.

So, I was determined to see A.I., even though I heard bad things about it from all directions. I intended to see it in the theater, but it came while I was out of the country. So when I returned, I awaited its arrival in the dollar theater. It came, and my friend and I said we would go see it that week. That was the second week of September, and it never happened. I think perhaps it is good that I did not see it at that time. As much as I wanted to see Castaway, when I found out I was going to England I did not want to watch it until I had arrived safely home. I had no such forewarning about A.I., but if I had seen this film on September 9th or 10th, I think it would have driven me over the edge. Watching it now was eerie enough.

The movie is a joint project of Steven Spielberg and the late Stanley Kubrick, the far less warm and fuzzy director of 2001 and Dr. Strangelove fame. Based on the short story Supertoys Last All Summer Long, it takes place sometimes in the future, after global warming has caused the icecaps to melt and flood many of the world?s major cities. In order to accommodate the needs of a new age, the leading scientists create androids who appear fully human but cannot feel emotion. This changes with the creation of David, an android in the form of a child programmed to love. David is given to a couple, Monica (Frances O'Connor) and Henry (Sam Robards), whose son Martin (Jake Thomas) is in a cryogenic coma while doctors seek a cure for his medical condition. By speaking a series of seven words, Monica imprints herself upon David, causing him to take on the eternal mantra of I Only Have Eyes for You, a song repeated several times throughout the film in another context.

David's obsession with his mother makes him a prime candidate for the Oedipus complex, as do his interactions with Henry and Martin, who recovers from his mysterious disease. I was reminded of Harry Potter briefly, between David's being locked in the closet at one point and the dreadful treatment given him by his "brother." At any rate, David becomes the outsider shortly after Martin's return, and Monica feels forced to dispose of this monster she helped to create. Releasing him into the woods with Teddy (Jack Angel), Martin's outdated supertoy that is reminiscent of Teddy Ruxpin, Monica makes David, a "mecha," promise to avoid people, who are "orga." David is left crestfallen but determined to win his mother's love by seeking out the Blue Fairy and asking to become a real boy.

The journey is dark and depressing, and his only friends throughout most of the journey are the wizened Teddy and Gigolo Joe (Jude Law), a quirky character programmed to be a lady-killer. Others pass through momentarily, including a robot nanny (Clara Bellar), a human child (the little girl from the Disney Scrabble commercial) and the Einstein-like hologram Dr. Know (Robin Williams sounding a lot like his earlier Genie). A cozy-sounding narrator (Ben Kingsley) whose voice begins and ends the movie provides a fairy-tale context, albeit a very dark one.

Osment is haunting as David, turning in a performance no less fine than I expected. He is passionate, he is tormented, and yet he is clearly mechanical. A very unnerving characterization. The other character I most enjoyed was Teddy, the gruff but gentle companion of David throughout the journey. Gigolo Joe was slightly off-putting at first but ultimately I found him pretty entertaining, and the trick he has of providing ambiance is quite nifty. I also enjoyed the manic Dr. Know. But that was about it.

The other characters did not move me, not even Monica. She annoyed me, actually. Something about her did not seem right, did not seem real. She failed to move me, and her dialogue was at times dreadful. (Example: Upon being told by her husband that she must be sure before she lets David imprint on her, she says, "Silly man, of course I'm not sure." Silly man?? Give me a break.) David seemed to show more emotion than she did, and when she did it seemed forced. I just could not bring myself to care about her. Her husband Henry comes across as wishy-washy, stupid, and mean-spirited. Above all, he seems extremely selfish. Her sadistic son Martin is a horror, as are his friends. The birthday party scene reminds me a lot of the party scene from The Sixth Sense. Haley definitely carries the day, and more than anything he is disconcerting.

This movie was no E.T. My dad complained because of the lack of dialogue. This was one of his major complaints with E.T., and he felt that A.I. also failed to have enough talking. This time, John Williams' score did not seem to annoy him as much, however. He thought the music in E.T. to be sickeningly saccharine. I never saw the sparseness of speech to be a problem for the former, so it didn't really bother me in the latter, either. A friend of mine forewarned me that while he thought the movie was pretty good up to a point, the ending spoiled the social commentary. If he was able to make enough sense out of this movie to see a social commentary and to tell that the ending shattered it, I salute him. I was never entirely sure what was going on and how I was supposed to feel about it. It definitely did not make me feel good like E.T. did. In fact, it sent cold shivers down my spine on a number of occasions.

One painfully long scene in the film involves David's being captured and taken to a Flesh Fair, a ghastly gladiator-like spectacle with the motto "a celebration of life." Androids are rounded up for these events and tortured in the arena before a bloodthirsty mob in the stands. It was a horrifying sight reminding me of the gruesome garage in The Brave Little Toaster. That movie still gives me the willies... The Flesh Fair provides nightmare material for a week, and it's not the only disturbing part of this movie. It's dark and depressing at every turn, and its extended ending (my friend also pointed out, and I definitely agree, that the movie felt like it should have ended about 20 minutes before it did) did nothing to salvage the warm and fuzzy feeling I was hoping to get. It left me dazed, disoriented, and down in the doldrums.

Add to that the scenes of a Manhattan flattened by floods, with just Lady Liberty's arm rising above the waves and the Twin Towers lording over the ruined city. New York City virtually destroyed. And, at one point, David leaping from the top of a building, and a shot of him plummeting to the waters below in a scene that looked far too much like those scenes of the WTC jumpers for comfort. It was all a little too eerie for me to say that I enjoyed the movie very much.

And yet, perhaps that sense of eeriness is what was intended. Though A.I. did not give me the reaction I had hoped for, it did produce a strong visceral reaction. Strange pairing that it was, the film made excellent use of Osment's talents and the available technology to give a glimpse of a possible future. And so I cautiously commend it and award it four stars. But it leaves me uneasy and hoping that Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future was more accurate than this. Please, Lord, tell me this is not where we are headed!

Diamond is a Girl's Best Friend

I just completed my review of Neil Diamond's concert for the school newspaper, and I would like to include it here. However, since this is Epinions and not the school paper, I’m going to exercise my right to ramble. Wherever you see italics - except for song titles - you’re getting additional insight of which my fellow college students were deprived. Feel privileged. (Or annoyed. Take your pick.) P.S. If you opt for the latter, just ignore the stuff in italics.

I've been a Neil Diamond fan for a long time. I can trace my admiration of his music back to the first days of our CD player, when we got our first batch of Columbia House CDs. Simon and Garfunkel made it out of the case first. And though I initially rejected them, within a day I had changed my mind. I became an 8-year-old obsessed. I sang their songs all day, listened to their music incessantly, dreamed I was performing with them. My parents got sick of it. "Listen to something else!" they demanded. And when I did not comply, Dad switched the CDs on me. And Neil Diamond weaned me off of Simon and Garfunkel, bringing my fanaticism to a better balance. I still enjoy his music, and his Christmas album is probably one of my top three favorite Christmas albums.

Still, I have noticed that I have impeccably good timing. Just as I happened to decide to write Art Garfunkel a letter months before he happened to come to Erie, so I happened to discover Cracklin' Rosie just a month or so before Neil Diamond came to State College. My little brother's got me hooked on Froggy (our oldies station), and I heard that song on the radio frequently and fell in love with it. Why? Who knows. Now that I've got it memorized I tend to think it may be a bit...I dunno, raunchy? But I love it anyway. I happened to mention this on the way to school one day as Cherry, Cherry was playing, just before they announced that Neil Diamond was playing three nearby locations in the next month.

So my birthday rolled around, and I should have taken the hint when my brother dedicated Cracklin' Rosie to me on the radio. But I’m so determined to be surprised, I never pick up on clues. So I had no inkling that I would be presented later that night with the news that I was going to see Neil Diamond in concert at State College. All I can say is...yay!!!! And the concert did not disappoint...

"If it’s true, as they say, that music can heal, let the healing begin." With this sentiment at heart, Neil Diamond graced a 10,000 -member audience with an electrifying two-hour performance on Tuesday at University Park’s Bryce Jordan Center. The drama of the performance was greatly increased by the fantastic lighting. In order for that to be possible, technicians had to climb up to the light boards, at least 50 feet above the stage, on rope ladders. Then they had to sit on the structures, which wobbled, for the duration of the program. I tip my hat to crazy people.

Diamond played without intermission, covering songs from all stages of his career. In light of the events of Sept. 11, Diamond’s 2001-2002 tour is decidedly patriotic in nature. The show began with a large flag hanging down in front of the stage. As the flag was raised, Diamond burst into America, a hit which has enjoyed renewed popularity since Sept. 11. Fun Fact: I bought a t-shirt bearing the image of the American flag behind Diamond’s silhouette. The audience gave roaring approval to the song, and when the lyrics demanded "Stand up for America...today!" everyone complied. Fun Fact: When I told my best friend about going to see this concert, she told me her mom has always loved this song because it reminded her of coming to America from England as a child.

Next, Diamond dug deep in his repertoire to sing Solitary Man and Cherry, Cherry. He made a few comments about college life along the way and slyly suggested that the administrators in attendance might see to it that the attending students would be exempt from morning classes the following day. His wit and charm kept his rapport with the audience going when the music was silent. And while his stage presence magnified the impact of his more energetic tunes, the slower songs such as Play Me and Girl, You’ll Be a Woman Soon flourished under his silky presentation.

The latter, in fact, turned out to be one of the show's greatest moments. Halfway through the song, Diamond selected a young woman in the front row of the audience by beckoning to her and urging her to, as the song says, "come take my hand." For the remainder of the song, he stretched out over the stage, clutching her hand, as she turned varying shades of red and fanned herself with one hand to keep from fainting. As the song ended, Diamond separated himself with an embrace and flopped down on the stage as though he'd just gotten the wind knocked out of him. Another woman in the front row offered him her handkerchief, which he gratefully accepted before singing two songs from his new album, Three Chord Opera, to "cool down." This complete lack of a barrier between performer and audience thrilled the observers, and the unwitting participant in the song got a nice round of applause. This incident prompted me to wonder whether I would be willing to pay - just a guess - $200 for Neil Diamond to kiss me in front of 10,000 people. Hmm....

I'm a Believer was another big winner. The song that became a hit for the Monkees a generation ago hit the top of the airwaves again last year with Smashmouth’s version, which was featured in the movie Shrek, and middle-agers and college students alike knew all the words. Some songs required more audience participation than others. Fun Fact: While we were watching Neil Diamond in State College, my grandma was watching Anne Murray (a concert I wouldn't mind seeing sometime myself) in good ol' Erie, PA. Although I have not yet confirmed this, I feel fairly certain that Murray performed Daydream Believer. And so Dad and I were linked to Grandma by the Monkees. Diamond introduced Forever in Blue Jeans as an old familiar favorite and encouraged the audience to stand and sing along and even go solo in a few places.

Likewise, Sweet Caroline was a stand-up-and-sing-along song, although when it ended, he quipped, "Beautiful job, that was lovely...but...why are you still standing? Don’t you know the song is...over? You mean you expect me to go out there and do it again? I was just checking to see if I had any choice in the matter..." He then took up the chorus yet again, this time with great accentuation on each note and hand gestures to match.

Beautiful Noise was one of the...well...noisiest songs of the night, making full use of the extensive band backing Diamond up. Each section had a portion of the song to itself, and by the time the song was over the audience members felt like they had been transported to New York City, Diamond’s hometown. Yet another highlight was You Don’t Bring Me Flowers, a soulful duet in which Diamond shared the stage with Linda Press, whose piercing vocals have contributed to this song for over 25 years.

One of the show's most poignant moments was the singing of Captain Sunshine, which was dedicated to Vince Charles, a member of Diamond’s band since 1977 who died last year. The other was the singing of He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother to honor the nation's true heroes: firefighters, policemen and servicemen. The show ended with I Am, I Said, one of Diamond’s defining hits. He was long gone long, however, before returning for an encore. A raucous Cracklin' Rosie preceded and electrifying Brother Love's Traveling Salvation Show, and the show officially ended with the lowering of the flag over the chorus of America.

"It's a good feeling to know that I've been able to bridge generations and still entertain such a varied audience," noted Diamond in his tour book. Fun Fact: He also mentions in his tour book that Simon and Garfunkel, along with the Everly Brothers and the Beatles, are his favorite singers. Good form, Neil! That certainly proved true on Tuesday night, and audience members young and old left the show assured that good music never goes out of style.

Hometown Boy Pulls into the Grammy Station

It's a proud day in Erie, PA. All you haters who say Erie's a podonk town with nothing good going for it, chew on this: Our guy is performing at the Grammys! Yep, the band Train with Erie-based lead singer Pat Monahan is gracing the Grammys with a performance of Drops of Jupiter, the song that swept the nation, a song that may just earn them a few golden statues themselves. And I say more power to 'em. Anybody from Erie reading this? I declare this Train Day! Wear conductor hats! Wear bandanas! Wear a choo-choo train lapel pin! Show your support for Train, who has managed the awesome feat of getting me to care about a modern band.

Yeah. You can tell. I'm psyched. And in case you don't know, modern music generally excites me about as much as... well, I'm feeling pretty uncreative this morning. But it doesn't excite me much. And then came this song. This amazing, miraculous song. This song that blows everything else out of the water. And it came from Erie. Pat Monahan, you have managed to write what is quite possibly the best song of the decade. I salute you. And to think I missed these guys the last time they performed in Erie! If I only knew...

How can I express my admiration of this song? Perhaps this would say it best: It belonged in the '70s. High praise indeed. The piano-heavy instrumentation makes it very reminiscent of Billy Joel. I saw in our paper the other day that this song came to Monahan out of the blue, in the middle of the night, and he rushed to the studio to play around with it. A friend of his came, too, and his friend was the one who discovered that piano was just the nudge this song needed to turn it into a hit single. Well, it certainly works.

But the piano isn't all that works. The overall instrumentation is amazing. It sounds like outer space. The sweeping strings in particular evoke an image of swiftly swirling galaxies and rushing planets. It embodies the conflict: the demanding earthiness of the piano, the alluring mysticism of the strings. Wow. Again I say wow.

But in order for a song to be truly great, it?s got to have great lyrics too. And the song succeeds on this count as well. I have praised Don McLean?s Vincent for its ability to conjure images of Van Gogh's paintings through its poetic language. Drops of Jupiter does the same thing with outer space. The lyrics work with the music to create a vibrant picture. "She acts like summer and walks like rain." "She listens like summer and talks like June."

The chorus is one big swirling mass of outer space sensuality. "Tell me did the wind sweep you off your feet / Did you finally get the chance to dance along the light of day / And head back toward the Milky Way / Tell me did you sail across the sun / Did you make it to the Milky Way / to see the lights all faded / And that heaven is overrated / Tell me, did you fall for a shooting star / One without a permanent scar / And did you miss me while you were looking at yourself out there."

Again, the conflict between earth and sky is audible in the lyrics as well as the music. The speaker voices his frustration by rattling off first a description of himself he's afraid she may have ("plain ol' Jane / Told a story about a man / who is too afraid to fly so he never did land") and, later, a frantic listing all of the reasons that she should want to get back down to earth. "Can you imagine no love, pride, deep-fried chicken / Your best friend always sticking up for you even when I know you're wrong / Can you imagine no first dance, freeze dried romance five-hour phone conversation / The best soy latte that you ever had . . . and me?"

You ever hear the song Ernie sings on Sesame Street, I Don't Want to Live on the Moon? Great song. Probably my all-time favorite muppet song. Well, that's what this reminds me of. Except now it's I Don't Want You to Live on the Moon. And it's more metaphorical, of course. It's a song about a guy afraid he might be losing his best friend because she's so immersed in her soul-searching endeavors that she's forgotten everything that used to be important to her. And it's just a great song. Heard it twice yesterday on the way back from State College, and I don't think the journey would have been complete without it. Train, good luck tonight. I hope you win. You deserve it.

*** Update: Glued to the television all night after parading around all day in my blue-and-white striped overalls and red bandanna (a subtle statement many missed). Snagged Train on tape performing Drops of Jupiter. Awesome job. They performed perfectly in front of millions of viewers and managed to bring home a couple Grammys as well. Great job, and can't wait to see what else is in store...

"Impossible Things are Happening Every Day"

I've been in a romance-y mood ever since I saw The Princess Diaries, and the other night I decided to indulge in a viewing of one of my all-time favorite romantic movies. At one o'clock in the morning. When I should have been writing a paper. Such is life.

I'm a sucker for Rodgers and Hammerstein. I love musicals, and not too many folks can outdo this creative team. And I definitely prefer the touchy-feely sentimentality of Hammerstein to the more hard-edged lyrics of Hart. I've loved their version of Cinderella for as long as I can remember, and it stands as my favorite although I enjoyed Disney's version and Drew Barrymore's Ever After. The songs are phenomenal, the prince (Stuart Damon) is gorgeous, and the sweep-you-off-your-feet, seemingly impossible romance is a thrill every time. (OK, Bargainluvers, you can dole out that corny award any time now.)

Leslie Ann Warren, 17 at the time, stars as the starry-eyed Cinderella, a meek and mild lass who exudes an innocence and freshness rarely seen on screen. She timidly obeys the commands of her step-mother and, to a lesser extent, her step-sisters, but when no one is looking, she whiles away her hours dreaming by the fireplace (In My Own Little Corner). As the movie begins, Cinderella is alone at home with strict orders to speak to no one. When a handsome stranger passes by on his travels, however, her kindness overcomes her fear of her step-mother and she offers him some water. As he and his companions move on, Cinderella discovers to her delight that the courteous gentleman with whom she had been speaking is, in fact, the prince.

When she learns of the prince's invitation to a royal ball (The Prince is Giving a Ball), Cinderella dreams of going to meet the prince again. Her step-family, of course, balks at the thought, and she must remain at home among the ashes. That is, until her fairy godmother shows up to convince her that anything is possible if she wants it badly enough (Impossible). The fairy godmother's song is a key number in both the Disney version and this version. Here, however, the emphasis is upon an individual's power to dream the impossible and make it come true. In Disney, the focus is on the magic in a few certain words. I like both, but Bibbity Bobbity Boo isn't likely to come in handy much in ordinary life!

Devoid of her rags and draped in a luxurious fur-trimmed gown, Cinderella arrives at the ball, flooring the previously fatigued prince. Once glance, and the prince is hooked. And somehow, it seems to him that they have met before... Ten Minutes Ago, the prince's starry-eyed duet with Cinderella about their love at first sight, is my favorite song in the film. Do I Love You Because You?re Beautiful? also fits in here, an interesting question because the prince didn't really fall for Cinderella until she looked like a princess instead of a dirt-smudged servant. Kinda like Eric in The Little Mermaid. These princes who are so sure they'll know their true love the first time they lay eyes on her... Anyway, Cinderella?s abrupt departure leaves the prince in shambles, and he must embark on a kingdom-wide search for the missing girl of his dreams. The film ends as it begins, and the prince's ability to recognize Cinderella in her rags and still be smitten is enough evidence for me that this love is not based solely on exterior appearances.

I love this movie. Its sets are very simple, and the scene in which Cinderella flies to the ball in her carriage is extremely fake, but I breathe it all in just the same. This prince has long been my standard for whether or not I consider an actor to be terribly handsome. Few can measure up. As I watched this most recently, I realized that the prince, as kind and courteous as he is, is a bit condescending. In his conversation with Cinderella, he carries a clear air of superiority, and he comes off as a bit of a snob when he dismisses Prunella and Esmerelda on the basis of a creaking knee and batting eyes. Cinderella is poor and subservient, but under the right conditions it is clear that she's physically flawless. Oh, well. It's a fairy tale.

The step-family is extremely enjoyable. Prunella (hey, speaking of Little Mermaid, she played Ursula) and Esmerelda (a Rodgers and Hammerstein regular) come off as a couple of silly, insecure young women constantly badgered by their whining mother. They're not especially nice, but it's not too hard to sympathize with them. Their moment in the spotlight comes with the hilarious and all-too-true song, Why Would a Fellow Want a Girl Like Her? They also come across as being halfway decent sisters during the song I Suppose. (Is that the title? I'm not sure.) The step-mother is hilariously snivelly, always complaining and wearing a look of disdain on her face. The look she wears when the prince silences her from reprimanding Cinderella at the end of the film is simply priceless. Put it on freeze frame. You'll laugh out loud. The king and queen are regal and genteel, played by veteran actors Walter Pidgeon and Ginger Rogers, and the kindly fairy godmother is beautifully portrayed by Celeste Holm.

I could watch this movie a hundred times - I probably have - and never get tired of it. "Ahhh-ahhh-ahhh!" (Little Mermaid again. Think Ariel getting her voice back from Ursula. Divine chorus. Can ya hear it? That is the sound of inspiration.)

~el fin~

"And I Would've Gotten Away with it, Too..."

Scooby Doo is a classic. Everybody knows that. And I have no great objection to the show or its title character. Scooby has earned his place with Yogi Bear, the Flintstones, the Jetsons, and others. But recently, I have been home to watch the Kids' WB after school lineup with my brother, and I've had the opportunity to watch episode after episode of the furry coward's sleuthing. (Don't ask me why they stuck a vintage show like Scooby Doo in with Pokemon and Jackie Chan Adventures. The much more pressing question for me is, why is this lineup immediately proceeded by Elimidate??? But that's another issue.)

I never really watched Scooby Doo that much before, certainly not back to back. So it's only now that I've come to realize just how formulaic the show really is. The following is a list of some of the many things that you can count on happening in just about every episode:

* Shaggy fixing himself a ludicrously complicated snack, only to have it swiped by Scooby at the last minute
* Fred ordering the protesting Shaggy and Scooby to branch off by themselves while he looks for clues with Daphne and Velma
* Shaggy tricking Scooby into taking the more dangerous part of their mission
* The five being reunited, then separated again, then reunited again
* Velma shouting "Jinkies!"
* Daphne disappearing
* Scooby being bribed with a Scooby Snack
* Chase scenes
* Instantaneous costume changes
* Really corny music
* Fred saying something obvious like, "Look! Footprints! It might be a clue!"
* Cops showing up at the end
* Unmasking, in which the villain(s) is revealed to be the only other character(s) in the episode
* "I would've gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for those kids and that dog!"

Had enough? Me too. The basic thing I have discovered is that if you've seen one episode of Scooby Doo, you've seen 'em all. That said, it's still funny, even if some of the laughs come from the corniness. Shaggy and Scooby's antics are always entertaining, and it's rather
interesting to listen to the audience laughter in the background. Sometimes I scratch my head and wonder what was so funny; some of the comedy is a little dated.

Velma has always been my favorite, the bespectacled nerd who gets to play second fiddle to Daphne. If Daphne's more visible, though, she's certainly not more important. She's pretty clueless, rarely contributing anything to the case and usually vanishing or getting herself kidnapped. Fred is Mr. Know-It-All, always ready to take charge and figure out what's going on. And usually he?s right, too, unlike in the later series when, as a 10-year-old, he was always ready to waggle the finger at Red Herring. Then there are always the extras, who are cookie-cutter copies of one another. They've got one ghost, one zombie, one witch, one old man, one cop... you get the idea. Same voices, too. I guess you could say that one thing Scooby Doo provides is stability. Don't expect too many surprises.

Certainly, Scooby Doo is not the only show whose plots so closely resemble one another. In Magic Schoolbus, for instance, the subject is always different but you always know who is going to say what and when. And the Scooby Doo theme song is hard to beat. As far as TV theme songs go, it's almost right up there with Gilligan's Island. So Scooby may be a little corny, and a little predictable, but he's still popular after all these years, so he must be doing something right.

In Honor of Lincoln on our Birthday

Today, February 12, marks the auspicious anniversary of the birth of two extremely important people - namely, Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth president of the United States, and Erin McCarty (myself). Okay, okay, I'm not really putting myself in league with the man I consider to be this country's greatest president. But I do think it's pretty cool that I get to share a birthday with him. So I figured this year, I would honor Mr. Lincoln with a review of one of the best biographies about him that I have read.

Lincoln: A Photobiography is a concise, easy-to-read biography packed with pictures of and facts about Abraham Lincoln. It was a most useful resource to me when I did a project on Lincoln in sixth grade, and I still consider it a fine portrait of my favorite president. Obviously many others agreed with me, because this book was awarded the Newberry Medal, the most prestigious prize in children?s literature.

The book is divided up into seven chapters. Chapter One, The Mysterious Mister Lincoln, provides a physical description of Lincoln and discusses why this man has come to be known as such a remarkable person. Included are two photos, one a portrait of a whiskerless Lincoln and one of Lincoln with General McClellan and his staff. Freedman shares several observations of those who knew Lincoln, and a few comments by Lincoln himself, including the famous quip, "If I had another face do you think I'd wear this one?"

Chapter Two, A Backwoods Boy, concentrates on Lincoln's early life. He was born in 1809 and lived in Kentucky, Indiana and Illinois, working on farms and educating himself through voracious reading. His mother died when he was nine, and he gained a step-mother the following year. This chapter describes Lincoln's home life and discusses how he fought his way up through the system to eventually become a lawyer. There are many pictures in this chapter, including a photograph of Lincoln's step-mother and a very nice painting of him splitting logs as a young man.

Chapter Three, Law and Politics, lists Lincoln's struggles with making a name for himself and courting Mary Todd, whose family did not approve of him, much to Lincoln's disappointment. The two eventually married despite the family's objections, and in the next ten years they had four sons, Robert, Eddie, Willie, and Tad, as Lincoln?s reputation as a lawyer grew. The end of the chapter deals heavily with Lincoln's family life and the tragedy of Eddie's death at the age of four. Among the pictures in this chapter are side-by-side portraits of Mr. and Mrs. Lincoln and a family portrait of Mrs. Lincoln with Willie and Tad.

Chapter Four, Half Slave and Half Free, delves into Lincoln's problems with the institution of slavery. "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong," he said. "I cannot remember when I did not so think, and feel." This chapter discusses how Lincoln dealt with the problem of slavery as a congressman and follows his bid for the presidency, his debate with Stephen Douglas, and his eventual election to the presidency. Two of the best graphics in this chapter are the poster announcing Lincoln's victory and the series of four portraits chronicling the growth of Lincoln's beard.

Chapter Five, Emancipation, chronicles the beginning of Lincoln's presidency and the commencement of the Civil War. The chapter deals with the opposition Lincoln faced, his reluctance to engage in a war that would tear the country apart, and the joys and sorrows of his family life. Of particular interest are the antics of Tad and Willie, who ran wild through the White House and had their own menagerie of pets which included a pony and a goat. This period also contained Lincoln's greatest personal tragedy, the death of 11-year-old Willie, whom Lincoln described as "too good for this earth." The chapter ends with Lincoln?s signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, which he considered to be the most significant act in which he would ever participate. Of the pictures, particularly enjoyable are the photographs of Tad and Willie and the painting depicting the signing of the Emancipation Proclamaton.

Chapter Six, This Dreadful War, follows the Civil War through to its end. Lincoln?s distaste for war is evident throughout this portion, and his "pigeon-hearted" nature is discussed in detail. His generals complained that he was always pardoning soldiers who had been given the death sentence. "It rests me, after a hard day's work, that I can find some excuse for saving some poor fellow's life," Lincoln said. This chapter also includes Lincoln's delivery of the Gettysburg Address and Lee's surrender to Grant. Many excellent graphics fill this section, including a handwritten copy of the Gettysburg Address, a full-body photo of General Lee, a painting of Pickett's charge, and the last photograph taken of President Lincoln during his life.

Chapter Seven, Who Is Dead in the White House?, concludes the narrative portion of the book, describing the days leading up to and following Lincoln's assassination. Death threats were nothing new to Lincoln, and there had been concern for his safety for some time. But when he went to Ford's Theater on April 14, he was in a festive mood. The attack by John Wilkes Booth threw the theater into an uproar, and although five doctors struggled to save Lincoln?s life, he died of his wound. In the words of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, he would now belong to the ages. Pictures in this chapter included a poster for the capture of Lincoln's assassin, a drawing of Booth in the act of shooting Lincoln, and a photo of Lincoln's funeral procession.

Finally, the book concludes with three appendices. A Lincoln Sampler is a collection of cool quotes from President Lincoln. In Lincoln's Footsteps contains descriptions of ten historic sites dedicated to Lincoln's memory. Finally, Books About Lincoln points readers in the right direction for further reading about this great American legend. Although Lincoln: A Photobiography is not particularly in-depth, it provides an excellent overview of Lincoln's life and is filled with interesting tidbits. I would rate it essential reading for Lincoln scholars as well as those only tangentially interested in him. I can think of few people in history more worth reading about.

Labyrinth Leaves Henson Devotee in the Dust

It's very hard for me to believe that a Muppet fanatic like myself living with a little brother who is even more of a Muppet fanatic should find herself watching Labyrinth for the first time within a month of her 21st birthday. How could I have gone so long without seeing it? It remains a mystery. Nonetheless, I have finally seen the Jim Henson fantasy that seems to have far outranked The Dark Crystal in terms of popularity. My brother liked it so much that he ran out and got the DVD two weeks later. I admit that my reaction was a bit less enthusiastic, and I am inclined to prefer The Dark Crystal. But the film was certainly a showcase of Henson's creative talent, and if nothing else, I enjoyed the wide array of characters that showed up throughout the course of the movie.

Labyrinth is the tale of Sarah (Jennifer Connelly), a teenager with an imagination rivaling that of Anne Shirley of Anne of Green Gables fame. She spends her time acting out fantasies in which she is the heroine, and her bedroom is filled with fantasy characters, many of whom show up later in the movie as living creatures. Her adventures begin when she returns from the park late to be reprimanded by her step-mother, who has stuck her with babysitting duty yet again. Sarah's baby brother, Toby, seems to be feeling particularly cantankerous tonight, and it isn't long before Sarah finds herself wishing that he would be stolen away by goblins. Much to her surprise, her appeal to the goblins is successful, and Jareth (David Bowie), King of the Goblins, shows up to present Sarah with a mystical gift.

Immediately remorseful, Sarah reluctantly refuses Jareth's offer and demands her brother back. Jareth informs her that she has just over a day in which to find her way through the labyrinth and into his castle. If she does not reclaim her brother in time, he will become a goblin forever. Eager to start, Sarah enlists the aid of Hoggle (voice of Brian Henson), an old dwarf caretaker who is spraying fairies with pest spray when she first meets him. Although he is rather gruff, he warms to the girl, and the next time they meet he agrees to help her find her way to the goblin castle. Sarah also finds friends in the form of Ludo, a gigantic sloth-like creature, and Sir Didymus, a fox-like knight who guards the bridge of the Bog of Eternal Stench and rides a sheepdog.

Other creatures include an ancient oracle with a bird on his head; a pair of two-headed playing cards that guard the entrances to two pathways, one leading to the castle and one to sudden death; flamboyant birds that juggle their heads around; two doorknockers, one who can't hear and one who can't talk; an enormous stone monster; and lots of goblins. Some strange new creature is always popping up, so you have to keep your eyes on the screen so you don?t miss any of them. One of the neatest scenes in the film involves a long tunnel of Helping Hands. These hands guide Sarah downward to the oubliette, and they constantly rearrange themselves in order to talk and convey a variety of expressions.

The film has many moments of cleverness, mostly in the way that Sarah overcomes various obstacles standing in her way, and it all ends happily ever after. That said, I must admit that this movie didn't really resonate with me the way Henson's movies usually do. There seemed to be an air of incongruity about the film, and at times I had a bit of difficulty following the action. The characters, especially Sarah, seemed to develop in spurts. Each change of heart was instantaneous rather than gradual. And the songs left me completely cold, a rarity for Henson; I usually sing along with gusto while watching one of his movies. I couldn't understand the words half the time, the tunes didn't click with me, and the songs just seemed pretty out of place overall. I was hopelessly confused as soon as Jareth started droning, "You remind me of the babe/the babe with the power/the power of voodoo?" And the later songs didn't make much more sense to me.

Jareth is the most enigmatic character in the film, and it is hard for me to decide whether or not to like him. He's a villain, obviously, but there's more levity than menace in his most villainous moments, such as the scene where he promises to make Hoggle "Prince of the Land of Stench" if Sarah kisses the dwarf. He seems genuinely overjoyed with Toby and treats him with paternal affection. Meanwhile, he is a melancholy presence when Sarah is near, and he seems to be quite taken with her and wishing she would reciprocate his adoration. He gives me the creeps, and yet I can't help but feel sorry for him. I find him to be the most engaging character in the film, and so I would probably, ironically, rate him my favorite character.

Since Nathan acquired the DVD, I suspect I will have plenty of time to grow into a deeper appreciation of this film. Perhaps it is one of those movies you must see several times to really understand. I hope that is the case. Though I didn't hate the movie, I think the most accurate comment I could make would be that I didn't get the movie. It?s a must-see for any Muppet enthusiast, and the bonus feature at the end which describes the making of Labyrinth is fascinating. But if I were to rank Jim Henson's films, I think this one would fall at the bottom of the list.

"You Saw Me When I Was Invisible."

Last Saturday, I went to the dollar theater and saw Joe Somebody, a less-than-mediocre movie about an average guy who nobody noticed suddenly becoming a somebody in the eyes of his colleagues. That evening, I watched The Princess Diaries, which we had rented a couple days earlier. This movie followed the same basic plot: nobody becomes somebody. However, I thoroughly enjoyed this film while I had little good to say about Joe Somebody.

The Princess Diaries centers around 15-year-old Mia Thermopolis (Anne Hathaway), a young woman completely devoid of grace and glamour. She hides behind a thick bush of frizz and a pair of glasses and is a first-class klutz. The popular kids only take note of her occasionally in order to make fun of her. Her life revolves around her best friend, the defiantly nerdy Lilly Moscovitz (Heather Matarazzo), and her cat Fat Louie, who lives like a king in her bedroom above her mom?s art studio in an abandoned firehouse in San Francisco. She is perhaps the least likely candidate for queendom imaginable, so when her grandmother Queen Clarice Renaldi (Julie Andrews), who is basically a stranger to her, shows up unexpectedly to tell her of her claim to the Genovian throne, Mia is flabbergasted. Her appalled reaction is not exactly what the stately queen had been hoping for.

Clarice explains that Mia's long-absent father was the prince of Genovia. Because of his untimely death, Mia is obligated to accept the role of princess or pass the rule on to a pair of stuffy aristocrats who are next in line. (These two are delightfully despicable and bear a strong resemblance in my mind to the Sackville-Bagginses, the couple in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings determined to inherit Bag End.) After much coercing, Mia agrees to consider the proposal, and she begins her training in courtly manners at the Genovian embassy. She also gets a personal chauffeur, the delightful Joseph (Hector Elizondo), the queen's head of security. Joseph's dry wit provides many laughs, and his empathy keeps Clarice from allowing her role as queen to overshadow her role as grandmother.

The scenes in which Mia attempts to transform herself into a princess are among the most amusing in the movie. I can certainly identify with her awkwardness, and I can only imagine what a disaster I would be as an aristocrat. One thing I can't identify with is the cruelty of Mia's classmates. Characters like Lana (Mandy Moore), the vicious cheerleader who makes Mia's school life miserable, are a teen movie staple, but I can't help but wonder if that sort of behavior really happens. I mean, I'm the biggest nerd around and it never happened to me, at least not to that degree and not in high school. At any rate, the distinction between popular and unpopular is very important in this movie and plays heavily into Mia's ultimate decision concerning her future.

Mia, just like Joe in the aforementioned Joe Somebody, finds herself suddenly surrounded by people who seem to be dying to associate with her. Her sudden popularity thrusts her into confusion, and her eagerness to be one of the cool kids causes her to slight her true friends, including Lilly's adorable brother, Michael (Robert Schwartzman), who is obviously hopelessly smitten with her. With the date fast approaching when she must formally announce whether she will accept the Genovian crown, Mia faces a difficult decision that will drastically affect her entire future.

I wanted to see The Princess Diaries when it was in the theater. I'm a sucker for Disney, and although I have found some of their recent live action films to be a bit lacking, this looked like a winner. For one thing, how often do you see a live action G-rated movie these days? It?s an extreme rarity, which is a shame for someone who almost always prefers G and PG films to PG-13 and R films. So the rating in itself intrigued me. And of course, there is Julie Andrews. The Sound of Music and Mary Poppins are both high on my list of favorite movies, so Julie Andrews is certainly likely to lure me into seeing a movie. Finally, I saw a lot of myself in Mia, and what girl doesn't want to imagine that someone like herself could become a princess?

The movie won me over completely. The plot might not be very original. I already compared it to Joe Somebody, and more specifically in follows in a long line of teen movies about awkward girls coming into their own, risking the loss of their true friends along the way. In this movie, however, we didn't have to deal with the crudeness and foul language that populates most teen flicks. Instead, what we got was a fairy tale film complete with charming characters and a touch of foot-popping romance. I have not read the book, so I cannot comment on the differences. Perhaps my opinion of the movie would be altered had I read the book first. But I find it hard to believe that knowledge of the book would lessen my enjoyment of the film. This is first-rate Disney fare, and I give The Princess Diaries my hearty recommendation.

Uncreative Names Aside, Cat and Bear a Winner

This past week, I unexpectedly came across an adorable little book by the name of Cat and Bear. The cozy story drew me in despite its simplicity, and I look forward to seeking out more books written by Carol Greene or illustrated by Anne Mortimer. The illustrations are a major part of the book's appeal, especially since the story is written with so few words.

The main character is Cat, a gorgeous Siamese with striking blue eyes and an air of aristocracy about him. His silky fur is so realistically rendered, the reader can almost feel it when reaching out to touch the page, and his intent expressions will ring true with any cat owner. Bear has a more whimsical look, and his fur appears course, offsetting the satin ribbon around his neck.

Cat is quite satisfied with his life with the Child, a golden-haired little girl, prior to the arrival of Bear in a brightly wrapped birthday package, and he views Bear's presence as entirely "unnecessary." His resolve against Bear stiffens when he discovers that the furry newcomer sings. Finding Bear to be a ridiculous nuisance, he plots ways to be rid of him.

Each plan is more devious than the last, leading to a climax strangely reminiscent of Toy Story. But when Cat finally succeeds, he begins to have second thoughts about his unkind treatment of Bear. The warm and fuzzy conclusion makes this an ideal story to read to a child who may be feeling just a tiny bit jealous of a new family member.

Joe May Be Somebody, but the Movie is Nothing

Last Saturday, I was bored and frustrated after spending the early afternoon plowing through some difficult reading for school, and I was looking for any excuse I could find to get away from my homework. So Dad proposed that I accompany my brother and his friend to the dollar theater for a fun diversion. The viewing choices were limited, and Joe Somebody was the only film with a PG rating. None of us knew much about it, but we figured that we would be pretty safe with a Tim Allen movie. And for a buck, it would be no huge sacrifice if the movie didn't turn out to be that great. So at least we went in without high expectations.

In the film, Tim Allen portrays Joe Scheffer, a video designer at a pharmaceutical company. Some of the biggest ripples of audience laughter throughout the film occurred when the narrator on his commercials recited a seemingly endless list of possible side effects. This exaggeration was rather amusing the first time, but repeating it was unnecessary and increased the impression that this movie didn't have much to go on. Most of its comedic moments depended on one of two gags: a ridiculously long recitation of side effects or some painful injury to the family jewels. The latter caused our neighbor to nearly collapse laughing, but my brother and I found it only mildly funny the first time and increasingly obnoxious the next several times.

But back to the story. Scheffer is a nobody, a guy whose contributions are never noticed. He's been skipped over for a promotion, he just got divorced, and he doesn't have any friends. In fact, nobody seems to care about him at all except for his daughter Natalie (Hayden Panattiere). So it's "Poor, poor, Joseph, whatcha gonna do, things look bad for you, hey, whatcha gonna do?" at this point. Joe's life takes a bit of an upward turn when he meets Meg (Julie Bowen), the company counselor who seems to be rather taken with him. But it slides right down to rock bottom again when he gets beaten up in the parking lot by Mark McKinney (Patrick Warburton) in the parking lot in front of his daughter on Take Your Daughter to Work Day.

Utterly humiliated, Joe locks himself in his house and immerses himself in housework. But he cannot escape his job forever. Meg comes knocking on his door after he has been absent for several days and convinces him to come back to work. Inadvertently, she also inspires him to challenge Mark to a rematch when he returns to work after his suspension. In no time at all, everyone in the office gets wind of the upcoming fight, and suddenly Joe is everyone's best friend. He gets to play squash in the exclusive company club, he gets a promotion even bigger than the one he was hoping for, he gets his own parking space, and he even gets to hobnob with Governor Ventura at the Minnesota Timberwolves game.

Life is good for Joe. All he needs now is the skill to beat Mark, and for that he enlists the aid of washed-up action film star Chuck Scarett (Jim Belushi), who uses unconventional methods to teach Joe what he needs to know. Both Meg and Natalie disapprove of Joe's decision to fight Mark, and despite his newfound popularity, Joe faces animosity from Jeremy (Greg Germann), a prissy exec with the hots for Meg. Before the film comes to a close, Joe will have to sort out what really matters to him and decide who his real friends are.

Nothing in this movie is very well developed. Natalie, who could have been a vital character, virtually disappears for the middle of the film. Callie (Kelly Lynch), Joe's eclectic ex-wife, confesses towards the end of the film that she is lonely and misses Joe terribly. And that's it. Apparently her renewed attraction to Joe stems from his new personality, but we can't be too sure. She never follows up on her feelings, and I'm inclined to wonder why they bothered sticking that scene in the movie. Similarly, Joe complains loudly about Callie's public displays of affection with her boyfriend, but he shows no qualms about kissing Meg while he is sitting right next to Callie at his daughter's school play. And no one else seems to care, either. Stupid.

Basically, I thought this was a very poorly done movie. I'm not sorry I went to see it. It was still fun. But I'm very glad I didn't see it for full price. The low-grade humor, the inane soundtrack (same seven notes played over and over and over...), the underdevelopment, the corniness... Somebody tell me why Tim Allen agreed to be in it.

Gardening is so much Friendlier with Pooh

Three years ago, I first discovered Pooh's Friendly Places. I know have most of the playsets in the series. They are very collectible, and most of them cost about $10 a set. Pooh's Very Grand Garden is a bit more expensive at a price of about $15. Like all of the sets, this comes with a small posable character; in this case, it's Winnie-the-Pooh sporting a red shirt, purple boots, and a pastel gardening hat. He's a couple inches tall and the surface of his body is fuzzy. His arms, legs, and head all move, and his hands can grip objects such as the basket that comes with this playset. He also is provided with a friend, a little purple caterpillar.

The set consists of the base, which contains the garden and picket fence, the grass and the stone path leading up to the gazebo. The garden is filled with holes into which carrots and flowers can be placed. Next to the garden is a hole to accommodate the garden sign. Inside the gazebo are shelves containing bowls and tools, which can be put into the picnic basket along with the watering can. The gazebo is a lovely structure with a fence, lattice, and a bee perched on the top. It comes complete with shelves, wall pegs, and a two-part back door that opens.

Every piece in the set is made of hard plastic, and the pieces are very colorful, mostly variations on slighter darker than pastel blue, yellow and purple. The backdrop is very colorful and pictures more of the garden and Rabbit. There is something very quaint and homey about each of these sets portraying a different facet of Hundred Acre life. With so many pieces, they are not only displayable but have great entertainment value as well. This set is one of the most intricate, and I would recommend it to any Pooh enthusiast over the age of five. Younger children may risk choking because the pieces are so small.

Rankin and Bass Tackle Tolkien Once Again

One of my first reviews on this site concerned the Rankin and Bass version of The Hobbit, for which my major complaint was the editing out or editing down of several key events. I have come to realize that this is an unavoidable casualty of war occurring when a book is translated onto the screen, and were I writing that review now, I would award five stars to The Hobbit, if for no other reason than that it set my vision of what the characters in my favorite book ought to look like. I also enjoyed the rustic tone of the animation and the songs, particularly the theme The Greatest Adventure.

The other night, I watched both The Hobbit and The Return of the King, and I noticed the extent to which the former set the audience up for the latter. First, Gandalf's comment that Bilbo's story of his encounter with Gollum "rings true," and then Gandalf's remarks to Bilbo at the end of the film, concluding with the tantalizing prediction that the adventures are only beginning.

The Return of the King makes good on those not-so-hidden promises of a sequel. I do wish that the time-honored duo would have tackled The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers. I believe they could have done a marvelous job with all three, and their version could have washed away the nasty taste left by the abysmal half live-action, half-animated attempt at Fellowship which rightfully flopped in theaters, leaving plans for a second film abandoned. As it stands, Return of the King relies primarily on The Ballad of Frodo of the Nine Fingers, sung by Glenn Yarborough in the guise of the minstrel of Gondor, to bring viewers up to speed on what is happening. The film does have the feel of being a continuation, despite the introduction, and the uninitiated may find themselves rather confused.

That said, I think that Rankin and Bass did a fine job with this film for what they were trying to do. John Huston reprises his Hobbit role of Gandalf magnificently and serves as narrator for much of the film. Orson Bean, who starred as Bilbo in The Hobbit, lends his voice to Frodo, portraying a distinctly different character who bears some familial resemblance to Bilbo.

My biggest complaint about the newly released live action version of Fellowship of the Ring was that they seemed to skimp on Sam. Not so here, though that would have been pretty difficult since Sam has several scenes to himself in Return of the King. Still, Sam's character is developed very well in this film, and Roddy McDowall does a perfect job portraying him. He sounds exactly as I would have imagined, and he imbues Sam with the necessary mixture of tenderness and spunk. Excellent performance.

The animation isn't exactly Disney-quality. The landscapes are usually static, and one segment in particular, the orc march, is comprised of a few seconds of animation repeated several times. However, the rustic quality remains, adding to the overall tone of the film. I especially like the way Sam and Frodo glow with power whenever they lay hands on the ring. Unlike the gentle glow of the elves, this is a throbbing, blaring, malevolent glow, and it is very effective.

Glenn Yarborough again sings several of the songs which appear in the film, including the haunting adaptation of Roads Go Ever, Ever On, which is just as effective a theme song as The Greatest Adventure. While The Hobbit featured adaptations of songs in the book, with the exception of the theme song, in Return of the King, only the theme song is adapted from the book. The remainder are original, and many are quite impressive.

My favorite of these is Beware, the Bearer of the Ring, the song that pops up every time Sam or Frodo is tempted by the ring's power. Featuring a chorus of deep, imposing voices and some shuddering percussion, it perfectly fits the mood of the moment. "The wearer of the ring, the bearer of the ring / hears a voice compelling him, / filling him with thoughts that echo in his mind. / It should be telling him, / "Beware, the power is a power never known, / beware, the power that was simple now has grown..." The silliest, in my opinion, though it's my brother's favorite, is Where There's a Whip There's a Way, sung by the marching orcs.

Neither of these is sung by Yarborough, but my favorite lines of song, part of the theme song, are. These lines, sung during the departure of Bilbo, Frodo, Gandalf, and Elrond for the Grey Havens, give me the shivers every time. "Leaving havens grey with rain, / now the years have slipped away, / leaving friends with gentle pain / as they start another day. / Roads I've traveled I must leave / for I’ve turned the final bend. / Weep not empty tears but grieve / as the road comes to an end."

There is much left out of this film, including many characters. Faramir, Arwen, Legolas, Gimli, Fangorn, Saruman, and others are either omitted or shown briefly without introduction. The film focuses primarily on Sam's rescue of Frodo from Cirith Ungul and their ensuing journey to Mordor. It breaks up this action with scenes of the demise of Denethor and the fierce battle which includes the slaying of the Witch-King and ends with the return of Aragorn. The movie begins with Bilbo's 129th birthday, and the ending picks up from that point, heralding the end of the age of Middle Earth and the beginning of the age of man.

This production is intended primarily for children, and I believe that it is appropriate for that audience. It serves as a good introduction to The Lord of the Rings for those who might not quite have the attention span required for a three-hour film. Adults can enjoy it too, and anyone who watches may indeed be inspired to wonder, as Gandalf suggests that we might, "Is there hobbit in me?"

"Well, I Have Two Major Gripes with The Lord of the Rings...

The first is that I wasn't asked to be involved!"

Confessions of a Rabid Tolkienite

A month ago, I never would have thought that by the time we saw my uncle, whose love of Tolkien surpasses even that of my dad, during our Christmas travels, we would not have yet seen the movie which I had anticipated for three long years. I fully expected to be one of those ardent fans lining up outside the theater in a Gandalf costume hours before the first showing. But in the pre-Christmas crunch, we chose patience over fanaticism, and it was two weeks before I stepped into the theater and shared in the conviction of my uncle’s sentiment. A two-fold sentiment: I wish I’d been involved because it was so awesome; I wish I’d been involved because it could have been more awesome. Most Tolkien fans would probably agree.

My uncle flashed a list of grievances he had made during his second viewing of the film, and I believe that most Tolkien purists were compiling lists of their own, whether written or mental, of the most serious deviations from the book. And each list, no doubt, is different. So, keeping in mind the limited amount of time which necessitated many revisions and the impossibility of pleasing all Tolkien fans all the time, I have no reservation whatsoever in giving The Fellowship of the Ring my highest recommendation. My personal grievances are not enough to weigh this movie down.

Hobbiton: When Do I Move In?

Visually, the film could not have been better. I never realized how gorgeous New Zealand is. The Shire is exactly as I imagined it, as are Rivendell and Lothlorien. Sheer visual perfection, from the landscape to the architecture. The less than pleasant places are also impeccable, particularly Moria and the Khazad-dum bridge. I could scarcely keep my eyes on the screen without shuddering. The scenes of Frodo with the Ring on are particularly chilling and effective. Frodo’s mithril coat, the glow of the elves, the magnificent display of fireworks which Gandalf provided, the disgusting orcs and horrifying balrog, the blazing Eye of Sauron... I really don’t see how any of it could have been better. No complaints there.

Can They Pull it Off?

I was worried about the cast. It seems to me that when I first saw the pictures of the cast members on the website, Gandalf (Sir Ian McKellen) was about the only one who looked right. I guess the pictures didn’t do them justice. Not all of the characters looked exactly as I’d pictured them, but they all looked right, despite Frodo’s (Elijah Wood) initial appearance causing deja-vu and hearkening back to Wood’s younger days as Huck Finn. No worries, though; I forgot Huck as soon as Frodo started to speak. And, granted, I’d never pictured Pippin (Billy Boyd) with a Scottish brogue, but it suits him perfectly. Neither did I see hobbits as having pointy ears; did I miss that? I thought that was an elf thing. But it fit. Gandalf conveys power and vulnerability, wisdom and irritability, agelessness and mortality. Aragorn is moody and noble, Borimir well-meaning but weak, Galadriel regal and tortured. The cast is dead on.


Concerning Hobbits

I instantly fell in love with the adorable Pippin, the cheeky scamp who manages to upstage my beloved Sam in the film. The actor playing him nailed him. I get the feeling the director (Peter Jackson) wanted to milk him for all the comic relief he was worth, beginning with an incident involving Merry and fireworks purloined from Gandalf. This was definitely not in the book, but it was enjoyable nonetheless and I couldn’t begrudge the departure. Pippin is definitely the most visible of the three hobbit companions of Frodo. Merry is the least visible. He is Pippin’s companion and little else. More sensible than Pippin but still immature, his personality is about right; he just doesn’t get a whole lot of air time. Their joining up with Frodo is amusing and certainly efficient; it saves a great deal of time to have them stumble across him in Farmer Maggot’s cornfield as they’re stealing his crops. However, it doesn’t say a whole lot about their character. They’re troublemakers from the beginning, and their genuine concern for Frodo is far less evident at this juncture than in the book.

It is Sam (Sean Astin) that upsets me the most. I was more worried about him than anyone else. He is my favorite character in The Lord of the Rings, and it seemed to me that it would be very easy to screw him up. He’s the type of character who could be easily undervalued. And I’m afraid my fears were confirmed. It’s not Astin that bothers me. He did great with what he had to work with. But many of the book’s most emotional moments and lines of most brilliant dialogue involved Sam, and almost all of it was cut for the film. Sam does not dote on Frodo as he should; his contributions are minimal, his personality is smothered.

As soon as I saw Gandalf order Sam to join Frodo on the quest, I knew he would be a disappointment. He shows no inclination to follow Frodo and no excitement at the prospect of seeing elves. His adulation of the mystical beings is mentioned only once, in passing, by Frodo, when Sam tells him in Rivendell that he can’t wait to take off and go home. Wrong! All wrong! And they show Sam releasing Bill the pony outside Moria, but we never see him get Bill in the first place. There’s no mention of Bill Ferny, and Sam’s Radar-esque love of animals is almost entirely ignored. We also don’t know he’s a gardener, and we never hear about the Gaffer, Sam’s beloved father about whom he talks endlessly. He has no poetry, no funny sayings, and not enough depth of feeling. I can only hope that the next movie will make up for it; Frodo and Sam are all alone, so Pippin won’t be able to upstage him this time.

Okay, enough of my hobbit gripes. I can’t complain about Frodo. He’s perfect. My doubts departed very early on. Frodo’s youthfulness is replaced with grim determination, and though his burden is heavy, he never shies away from his duty for more than a moment. Wood’s intense eyes provide windows to Frodo’s soul on several occasions, displaying his struggle against the Ring and his deep concern for those he loves, particularly Bilbo (Sir Ian Holm) and Gandalf. Finally, Bilbo is a pure delight. We don’t get to see him much, which is as it should be, but when he’s around, he’s as charming and witty as the Bilbo I love. From doddering around Bag End trying to convince Gandalf to consume more than just tea to blowing smoke rings, from embracing Frodo to regaling bug-eyed toddlers with his adventures, Bilbo is exactly right. And he gets to say my favorite line of his in the trilogy: “I know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.” Bravo!

Of Wizards and Men

Gandalf, as I said, is impeccable. I loved him in the beginning especially, reminiscing with Frodo and Bilbo, impressing the children with fireworks, bearing the disapproving glances of the gentry, bumbling about in the comparatively tiny Bag End, and laying down the law when certain hobbits get out of hand. We don’t have The Hobbit to compare him to here, but he conveys a sense of exhaustion which was not present upon his first meeting with Bilbo. He is the clear leader of the Fellowship immediately after Rivendell, and the Fellowship cannot survive long without him. But he is also cantankerous, cursing irritably to himself after hours of failed attempts to open the doors to Moria and withering Pippin with his rage after Pippin’s clumsiness gives away their position.

Saruman (Christopher Lee), too, is most effective. His part is more extensive than it ought to be at this point, but the scene of his betrayal of Gandalf is very impressive. He is calm, cool, and clearly in charge as he oversees the preparations for battle, which include developing Uruk-hai, a human-orc hybrid. Most of all he is cruel, turning his back on the good for which his white cloak stands and embracing the enemy.

Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) is appropriately dark and brooding. Choosing the life of a ranger over royalty, he is a loner but a leader, instrumental in getting the hobbits from Bree to Rivendell. I missed Frodo’s line at the Prancing Pony, when Aragorn introduces himself as Strider, that a friend of the Enemy would “look fairer and feel fouler” than Strider does. Their meeting is too brief to elicit the necessary trust in this mysterious stranger, especially since there is no letter from Gandalf to corroborate the story. All the same, Aragorn is an impressive figure essential to the Fellowship until the end of the film, when Jackson inexplicably decided to have Aragorn see Frodo leave and let him go. This is very much out of character, and it was the second major gripe my uncle had with the movie.

However, this does allow for a scene involving Borimir (Sean Bean) which does not occur in the book but is very moving. In fact, I prefer this part to the book, as I was never able to react appropriately to the comparable scene in the book. I could never bring myself to like Borimir enough to agree with my dad that his death was the saddest occurrence in the first half of the trilogy. Now I must read it again, with renewed determination to like Borimir. In the movie, it is easy to distrust Borimir and feel fond of him at the same time. His lust for the Ring is borne out of good intentions, and his affection for Merry and Pippin makes it very difficult to dislike him entirely.

Glimmering White and the One Dwarf

Ugh. What was that? The reason I don’t usually subtitle my reviews, I guess... Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) don’t get a whole lot of air time here, Legolas in particular. Both look exactly as I would have pictured them. The stocky dwarf Gimli hides behind an enormously bushy beard and speaks with a gruff Scottish accent. He wields an axe and is fiercely proud of his kinsmen who work in the mines of Moria. Legolas the elf is bright-eyed and slender with long golden hair. He is soft-spoken and gorgeous but deadly with a bow in hand. Both he and Gimli are eager warriors, but they clash because of their prejudices against one another. Though their rivalry contributes to a fistfight in Elrond’s council (not in the book), it doesn’t come to light very often. Their climactic moment of animosity in Lothlorien and ensuing friendship do not carry over to the screen, but I suspect they, too, are developed more fully during the second installment.

Arwen (Liv Tyler) and Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) are very well done. Arwen’s role is bigger here than in the book; she scarcely makes an appearance in the book at all. But she’s only present in Rivendell, and I didn’t mind the increase in her role nearly as much as I thought I would. Besides, it gave me a chance to hear the Elven tongue properly spoken. Anyone who can do that has the nod of approval from me. Lady Galadriel is as ethereal as I had imagined, and her moment of trial with the Ring is terrifying but dead on. My only complaint here is that we didn’t get to see all of the characters’ reactions to her. Most missed is Sam’s, as his interaction with the Lady of the Wood and her mirror is nearly as revealing as Frodo’s. Lord Celeborn (Marton Csokas) looks right, if you’re quick enough to catch him. He’s on the screen for about five seconds. Elrond (Hugo Weaving) looks younger than I would have thought, but his somber face is just what I pictured.

Wrapping it Up...

Had enough? If you’re still with me, you’re probably ready to kill me. I guess I’m making up for lost time here. It’s my come-back review after an unpredictably impossible semester. I promise this isn’t a pattern. It’s just that I have so much to say about this movie, and if this is more in-depth than my review of the actual book, it’s because I have a basis for comparison now. The filmmakers changed a lot, and as a Tolkien devotee I’m going to notice that.

I’m going to note Galadriel’s ten minutes of exposition at the outset of the film, whereas the book began with the preparations for Bilbo’s party and dropped the history bit by bit along the way. I’m going to grumble that Gollum’s history in the film involves his always having been a slimy creature named Gollum, when it seems an important detail that he was originally a hobbit named Smeagol. I’m going to lament the loss of Fatty Bolger, Old Man Willow, and Tom Bombadil... nah, Tom we could do without. But they missed a lot of good stuff in the beginning. I’m going to pine away after Sam’s ballad of Tom and the troll, my favorite song in the book, despite the fact that its only real relevancy is to establish Sam as a poet. I’ll compile a list of grievances a mile long in one lobe of my brain, and in another I will stay riveted to a movie that actually manages to do justice to the finest piece of literature ever written. And when my dad says it just may be the best movie he’s ever seen in his life, I won’t be astonished to hear it.