Their savage souls, and their dull story

Lord of the Flies
By: William Golding
Setting: An unknown island
Format: 225 pages
Verdict: (Everyone has to read it some day. But for those of you who feel like reading it for fun, you can SKIP IT)
Rated: PG-13 (Violence, killing, savegry...)

The basic premise: A bunch of shipwrecked boys with no adults in sight, start killing each other and turning into savages. Yes, I'm talking about the book that every kid of at least this generation had (or has at least) to read this book for school. I just finished it myself, and not to say it was the worst book I've ever read, but considering there has been many books about the downfall of civilization, this one dosen't reach its potential. Yes, hate me, I dared to not like this book.
Original? Fairly. But notice the PG-13 rating. The book is too kind on this violence, I say if you're going to go with savagrey, flaunt it. Golding takes this too kindly. We are talking about the end of democracy amoung a group of boys who want to kill each other. I admit that too much would ruin it, but there needs to be more to really notice a considerable, awful change. 
Which brings me to another point: Ralph to me wasn't so much as "good guy" than as a "bad." Had Jack not shown up the way he had, I would have been totally convinced that Ralph was going to be the one that's going to create all the mess that happened in this book. At first he acts like a selfish brat. Maybe Golding meant Ralph to be this way so that the reader can sense the destruction ahead I don't know, but the way he treated Piggy, and acted so selfishly, made me lose all the sympathy for him. Well, sometimes I did but I didn't feel a lot, because he continues to brush off Piggy's asthma and continues to not listen to Piggy just because he's not like him or Jack or anybody. 
Simon is the same way, SPOILER HERE!! I felt sad that he died, but only BECAUSE he died. SPOILER OVER. I never connected with him as a character, Golding didn't really develop his personality that well.  So in the end I really didn't care for him that much. Now granted there are some great scenes with him and the Lord of the Flies but there is very little for me to enjoy in his character. Actually, none of them were really enjoyable except for Piggy and Samneric, who had the most complex of personalities, the ones that I actually liked. I told you about Ralph, but Jack seemed a little too unrealistically evil, even for an allegorical novel I found no qualities that I felt, jeez I would really like to know what's going on in this character's head. 
The story itself is intriguing but again, I didn't feel like this was a major break out novel. The writing has no special quality to it, I didn't find myself ENTRANCED by it. The plot never leaps forward because of this non-exciting writing and un-connectable characters. I know some of you will comment on this post and say, "It's an allegory, you're not supposed to take it seriously!" Yes well, in all books, including allegory's, the rules of liking a novel because of character, plot and writing, the rules also apply. 
Now, it's not ALL bad. There are some wonderful scenes that I wouldn't change (The killing of the sow scene, the Lord of the Flies scene...) that were wonderfully gory and creepy. And I did get a chance to compare characters to other people in real life, it is a very original idea, you have to give Golding that. It's not totally unlikely there are no fantastical scenes save a few of course but none of it is really based in the paranormal. But at the same time, the book never really ties together, and those scenes fail to save it. 
Sorry any kids who didn't read this book yet: You are going to have to read it soon. Now, some of my friends absolutely hated this book, that's a bit of an exaggeration. And I can see, going into the Nobel Peace judges (or whatever you call them) why the author won a Nobel for the book. But can I say even CHECK IT OUT even if you want to read it for fun? No. It's not that good enough a classic. This one, I'm afraid, is going to get a SKIP.

The Duchess movie

The Duchess (Based on Amanda Foreman's Biorgraphy Georgina Duchess of Devonshire)
Director: Saul Dibb
Cast: Keira Knightly (Georgina The Duchess of Devonshire), Ralph Finnes (The Duke of Devonshire), Charlotte Rampling (Lady Spencer), Dominic Cooper (Charles Grey), Hayley Attwell (Elizabeth Foster)
Screenplay: Jeffrey Hatcher and Anders Thomas Jensen
Distributor: Pathe
Length: 1 hr. 45 min.
Verdict: RENT
Rated: PG-13 (Lots of Period componets here, mostly sex. You know what I'm talking about.)

This biopic is based on the cliche, based-on-a-true-story-about-a-rich-aristocratic-woman-who-falls-in-a-loveless-marriage type story. Sounds familliar? Sure. We've heard that story all before. Not to say it's a total cliche it is a Keira Knightly period drama after all. Now I know some of you must be groaning but this is better than those period movies. Does that mean it's something original and fresh? Absolutely not. It's  striking to look at, but sometimes, it feels really tiresome and long.
Now grant you Keira Knightly is amazing. The only thing really original about this movie is the fact that the movie looks at the life of a celebrity as her character was known back in  eighteenth century England. And Keira just pulls it off so well and Ralph Finnes, who plays her cold-hearted devil of a husband (uh oh yes the movie goes in THAT territory) gives his character a heart, which is kind of hard to do it right. But he does, and the acting is one of the reasons that I'm recomending this movie. It's nice to look at somebody that not a lot of people know outside of England, looking at the world of celebrity. I don't know how historically accurate this movie is, Hollywood tends to play around with historical accuracy but the clothing and whatnot don't seem out of place so I don't see any problem there.
My main problem here, was with plot. First, it drags for long, long periods of time. At the end of the movie I thought I had wasted my whole afternoon watching a fluffy period drama. There were some characters at the end that I wanted to see more of, including Dominic Cooper's character as her lover. And yes, I had a problem with the rape scene (imagine that...) in this movie. Directors want to make us feel so sympathetic to the main character, that they go out of their way and make a rape scene to feel sorry for the poor woman because that's how women were treated back then yay! Complete failure. Also a complete failure? The sex scenes. Now I know, there were only two and one wasn't even all that graphic, but the same thing with Dominc Cooper and Keira Knightly, they do not have chemistry. We have to make graphic sex scenes when we don't need them, and what's worse, they're badly mishandled. Ugh, I wish every movie was like Bright Star...
So, should you run out and immediately put this DVD in your Que at Netflix or run out to Blockbuster or wherever and see this movie? Not really. However, it is one of the better period films beating The Other Boleyn Girl by a longshot. This isn't anything HUGELY special though, so if you have a few minutes and happened to pass by Blockbuster on your way home sure, it's a nice pick me up if you're feeling bored and sorry for yourself.

Bright Star

Bright Star (based on Andrew Motion's Biography Keats)
Director: Jane Campion
Cast: Abbie Cornish (Fannie Brawne), Ben Whishaw (John Keats), Paul Schneider (Charles Brown), Kerry Fox (Mrs. Brawne), Edie Martin (Toots), Thomas Sangster (Sammuel)
Screenplay: Jane Campion
Distributor: Pathe
Year: 2009
Length: 1 hr. 59 min
Verdict: SEE
Rated: G (Don't pay any mind to the silly PG rating. The only riske things about it are a pregnancy, minor swear words, and some kissing. The movie's completely harmless)

Before I start, let me get this out of the way: FINALLY! A GOOD ROMANTIC DRAMA!!

According to RottenTomatoes.com, the movie is certified FRESH. And oh wow is it fresh. This is by far, one of my favorite period drama. It's not THAT beautiful to look at (although there is absolutely gorgeous scenery made for gorgeous shots) but I didn't mind. This movie should take the example of romantic dramas that have absolutely useless sex scenes to fill in for bad chemistry between actors, and costume dramas which has constantly boring, and useless shots to fill in the movie. This is high class.
I love Ben Whishaw (although the real Keats is way more handsome) and Abbie Cornish is amazing. They both have such great chemistry, you don't even need a sex scene. In fact, there is none, and yet the sexual tension between them is there. And of course their love is so beautiful and clean if you add them beneath the trees and in meadows, with such absolutely exquisite shots. Okay, yes it might be mannered and proper, but that's what their love was so I really didn't mind.
As with any movie, it's not perfect. For one, sometimes it can get boring although it's not really enough to completely lose you. And Fanny is such a Juliet sometimes when she says to Keats: "I hate you!" when he's going away and wants to commit suicide upon hearing he's going to London. Needless to say though, it's a sweet, beautiful movie about young clean love that can last a lifetime. And if you're worried about your kids seeing this, it's a completely harmless movie.So, I say SEE IT. Definately see it.

For those of you who are wondering, this is Keat's poem which named the movie

Bright star, would I were stedfast as thou art--
Not in lone splendour hung aloft the night
And watching, with eternal lids apart,
Like nature's patient, sleepless Eremite,
The moving waters at their priestlike task
Of pure ablution round earth's human shores,
Or gazing on the new soft-fallen mask
Of snow upon the mountains and the moors--
No--yet still stedfast, still unchangeable,
Pillow'd upon my fair love's ripening breast,
To feel for ever its soft fall and swell,
Awake for ever in a sweet unrest,
Still, still to hear her tender-taken breath,
And so live ever--or else swoon to death.

The Other Boleyn Girl movie

The Other Boleyn Girl
Director: Justin Chadwick
Cast: Natalie Portman (Anne Boleyn), Scarlett Johanson (Mary Boleyn), Eric Bana (King Henry VIII), Jim Sturgess (George Boleyn), Mark Rylance (Sir Thomas Boleyn), Kristen Scott Thomas (Lady Elizabeth Boleyn). David Morrissy (The Duke of Norfolk), Ana Torrent (Katherine of Aragon)
Screenplay: Peter Morgan
Year: 2008
Length:  1 hr, 55 min.
Verdict: SKIP
Rated: PG-13 A little sex, (not a whole lot) and two pretty frightening executions
Faithfulness: 2%

BE FOREWARNED BEFORE WATCHING THIS MOVIE: The movie is NOTHING like the book. Nothing in this is similar in any way to the book except for one scene, and the overall plot of the book and ending, which is obvious. That aside, the acting in this movie is great. Natalie Portman steals the show, although Scarlett Johanson is quite close. Everybody from Jim Sturgess who portrays George just as I imagined he would be, and David Morrissy, who plays her uncle, the real antagonist, has such a presence when he's on screen that I was scared of him during the whole movie. The only person who doesn't quite make it is Eric Bana, not a poor choice, but they could have chosen someone better. Bana just doesn't have that presence, I found him quite weak compared to what I imagined Henry in the book.
But of course even when you have good actors, even when you have delectably GORGEOUS sets and costumes, even when the script isn't that bad, the movie just skips over the major scenes in the book. Instead, unnessecary scenes were added in, or tinkered with (Jim Stugess goes to the scaffold like a coward). A lot of the characters were cut out of the whole movie (Cardinal Wolsey the king's adviser, and a major player in the book went missing). And as good as Portman and Johanson are, a lot of the actors murmur their lines than speak them normally, which gets annoying after a while.
The whole movie desperately wants to rush to a conclusion , because of that it leaves out many important character motives and events including George's homosexuality. I know that most movies aren't completely faithful to the book, but this one just didn't make it. It's great eye-candy, but there's nothing containing substance. Readers of the book will notice the rush the movie decides to take, (and a few historical innacuracies concerning several plot points) so this is not for them. In fact, only a Tudor fanatic that has the brain to not take this movie seriously will enjoy it.

In the Tudor period, two sister lie abed with the king...

The Other Boleyn Girl
By: Philipa Gregory
Time Period: 1521-1536 Tudor England
Verdict: CHECK IT OUT
Rated: R LOTS of sex (and talk of it), miscarriages and executions...OH MY!

Surely you know about Anne Boleyn and her relationship with the young and reckless (and later tyrannical) King Henry VIII? I bet you didn't know she had a sister who vied for his attention as much as she did. No, this is not the historical fiction version of Mean Girls, we're talking about The Other Boleyn Girl. Who is the other Boleyn girl, the book has no answer to that question. At first, the other girl is Anne, fresh from the French court and had been ordered by her family to force her sister Mary, then the lover of the king, into his bed. But Mary dosen't know that her sister can be as manipulative and ambitious, and as Mary bores him a son, Anne brushes Mary out of the spotlight. So now Mary gets the role of the Other girl, and watches her sister woo her lover and king that she had loved ever since she was a young girl of thirteen.
Of course Anne succeeds Katherine of Aragon, by then totally brushed aside by Henry, but that dosen't make her any happier. On the contrary, more sibling rivalry occurs, and the fact that Mary has had three kids while Anne only contents herself with Princess Elizabeth does not make things easier. Sooner than later, the king finds himself in the skirts of another mistress, while Mary and her brother George have to content themselves of burying dead baby corpses from the queen amoung other things. It's not until the last deformed baby comes out that the lies and the sealing of Anne's fate comes into play.
Philippa Gregory does a nice job of creating an atmosphere of the Tudor court, but that's not enough. During the first part of the book, I had no idea what the dresses and court looks like, all we know is the dresses are made out of "rich cloth" which after about the fifth time really got on my nerves. But after the beginning, the court was nicely described, and I felt in the halls of whatever castle the court moved to during the seasons. Setting aside the details, the characters were probably the best thing in this book. Some reviewers might disagree and call all of them one-dimensional, but one dimensional characters means nothing. You can still have one dimensional characters and they can still be interesting. Anne and Mary for one, have numerous flaws, Anne and her family has a particular tragic flaw which ruins her and her family based on one ambition that turned out to be a mistake.
Mary's thoughts on life, however banal (wants to marry for love and live a quiet life in the country while poor, we've all seen those before) is touching. The fact that she was a narrator really enhanced the book. Had Anne been the narrator, we would miss out on an important thought process and life no matter how historically inaccurate. She is a really interesting bystander and reminds us that she hadn't changed Tudor history, but she had been a pawn in her family's ambition and while watching Anne grow to becoming queen then falling, it had become an experience that she won't forget.
That's all fine... for a while. Does it drag? Does it read like the author has a limited vocabulary? Yes. It's historical fiction after all, the bad bunch tends to do the exact same thing. I have told you about the rich cloth, but a lot of repeated words are used in the same sentence. Not to mention that "and" is one of Philippa Gregory's favorite words. Sometimes, you will get frustrated, rooting for the characters but finding some parts dragging, there's an especially long, LONG scene where Mary is riding to the countryside where she is banished. Nonetheless, it's still a good read, I recommend it for adults, definitely, but instead of wasting your money, check it out of the library. In the end, it's a nice read.