"Tangled" Movie Review

An animated story of Rapunzel, with exciting twists and adventures along the way.

I LIKE THIS MOVIE.

It is super funny, and surprisingly clean! It doesn't contain any rude humor that I picked up on, nor inappropriately dressed girls. (The evil old lady's may be a little low at times, but not shockingly so). There were only one or two things that struck me as objectionable. One was a conversation between Rapunzel and Flynn Rider, (a handsome bandit! ;), when Rapunzel is struggling with guilt over disobeying the woman she thinks is her mother, by leaving the tower. Flynn tells her that it's part of growing up, to rebel at a certain age and break your mother's heart. There is an impression that Flynn's advice is not to be trusted at this point, yet the statement is never openly refuted. This is not a good thing for kids to hear, as it makes an excuse for and encourages sin nature. If you watch the movie with children, consider doing some explaining/correcting during this scene. The other possible objection was an emphasis on following your dreams, which isn't all bad, but gets blown out of proportion by Disney all the time.

I definitely do recommend "Tangled," unless you harbor an abhorrence for animated films, or happily-ever-after stories. I personally love both. And I want a horse like Maximus!

Speak Now - Taylor Swift

Taylor Swift's third album Speak Now, sold 1,047,000 copies in its first week. I was hoping that meant that she was actually improving as a songwriter/singer, so I listened to the album.

"Mine" is comparable to "Love Story" in that they're both cute stories, and not as musically redundant as Swift's music sometimes can be. But "Mine" is not nearly as close to innocent as "Love Story," mentioning "a drawer of my things at your place" among other things.

"Sparks Fly" has several suggestive phrases like "it's just wrong enough to make it feel right" and mentions "you're the kind of reckless that should send me running" and "my mind forgets to remind me you're a bad idea." There are no decent parts to this song.

"Back to December" (supposedly written to "Twilight" star, Taylor Lautner) apologizes for breaking his heart, and seems to be asking for him to take her back. It's kinda catchy, but I can't get past the fact that she's broadcasting this tender little apology to the whole world. If I were Taylor Lautner, I think I would be disgusted. As more of a "wish-I-could-tell-you," anonymous sort of song, though, it's not bad.

"Speak Now" is about a girl barging into her ex-boyfriend's wedding and breaking it up. She talks about the bride "yelling at a bridesmaid... wearing a gown shaped like a pastry" and "her snotty little family." If she's correct about the bride's personality, I guess she did her ex-boyfriend a favor. Again, not bad... pretty funny.

"Dear John" (rumored to be written to singer John Mayer) rants about how he treated her and paints a bleak picture of the aftermath of their age-imbalanced relationship. I didn't enjoy it at all, but there's nothing too objectionable about the lyrics.

"Mean" is a childish song written to a critic who did what critics do: criticized her. At one point Swift says she can see him in bar years from now "drunk and grumbling on about how I can't sing." This song would be hilarious except for the fact that a 20-year-old wrote it... and appears to take herself seriously. The word "mean" is extremely over-used, and I think I can see the critic dying of laughter over this song.

"The Story of Us" is just a stereotypical failed happily-ever-after story and seeing each other after the relationship fell apart. Another so-so song with nothing objectionable, and a catchy tune but just a little redundant and boring. And it ends weirdly with a spoken "The End."

"Never Grow Up" is a sweet, sad song about Swift's feelings about getting her own apartment, and what her parents probably felt thinking about her childhood. But the phrase "grow(n) up" is used too many times and you just want to never hear her sing those words again when the song is finally over...

"Enchanted" is about love (or obsession?) at first sight. Swift muses, "the lingering question kept me up 2am, who do you love?" A light-hearted, innocent song about that completely shallow attraction that you can have after barely meeting someone. The line "I was enchanted to meet you" goes down better than "please don't be in love with someone else" though.

"Better Than Revenge" (possibly written to Joe Jonas' next girlfriend) is bursting with childishness that rivals "Mean." She seems to equate the stolen boyfriend with "toys on the playground" and speaks of having the boyfriend "right where I wanted him" when the other girl "stole" him. She also digs into the other girl with an inappropriate line about her reputation.

"Innocent" looks back on childhood innocence and offers forgiveness ("who you are is not what you did") assumedly to Kanye West, who apparently insulted her by interrupting an acceptance speech. Another shallow, slightly boring song, but with a feel-good message... however incorrect (since no one is really innocent...)

"Haunted" is another love story gone wrong, with Swift yearning for an ex, "haunted" by the relationship. Nothing bad here, just another redundant song.

"Last Kiss" is suspected to be written about Joe Jonas. It's a hopeless and depressing song about their breakup. She says she'll "go sit on the floor wearing your clothes" and wishes him well while she wallows in her pain and declares "your name, forever the name on my lips." There's also a hint of a sleepover when she says "like I used to watch you sleep."

"Long Live" is a fun, fairy-tale-esque story about crashing through walls, fighting dragons, moving mountains and ruling the world.


Compared to other teen stars who are "growing up" Taylor Swift's new album isn't as bad as I would imagine Miley Cyrus' album (I only bothered to listen to "Can't Be Tamed".... freaky) but maybe that's because she's just not growing up as fast. The whole album felt very much like something a 14 or 15-year-old might have written, especially since those ages have become targeted by so much more sensuality recently.

Also, Taylor Swift can't sing. I've heard her "live" (though I wasn't actually there, it was on TV) and she's really terrible.

I'm a little scared that 1,047,000 copies of this album sold in the first week.

Inception (PG-13)

First, my completely biased opinion: one of the most amazing, thought-provoking, well-filmed and fascinating movies that I have ever seen. I immediately wanted to go back into the theater and watch it again. The plot is so detailed and unique. I really enjoyed it. I highly recommend it to the older teen/adult who enjoys that sort of mysterious science-fiction.

I really don't want to spoil the plot, so unless you're unsure about seeing it and want to know the gory details of all the negatives in the plot, don't read any farther. The first negative is the amount of violence. Much of it is in dreams, so the "people" being "killed" are actually just projections of the dreamers subconscious, and not actually "real" people being killed. It still looks like real violence, though. Second, God's name is abused, and there are several other curse words, but it wasn't the worst language that I remember for a PG-13 movie. Third, there aren't really any good guys, as the main characters are thieves, trespassing in and stealing from people's minds. The main issue for me, though, was the suicide aspect. In dreams, suicide "wakes you up." One character, having experienced the effect of suicide in a dream, comes to believe that real life is still a dream, and to really wake up and see their "real" children, decides to commit suicide again, and tries to convince the spouse to do the same. The character succeeds in suicide, but the spouse doesn't try and tries to save the other character unsuccessfully. As you can imagine, that is tragic. Also, the effect that this movie might have on people of suicidal tendencies or just people in general who might not have a Christian viewpoint on life, death and the afterlife is worrying. However, all that aside, I would still recommend this movie to anyone sane who wouldn't have an issue with the violence and language. It was pretty clean for a PG-13 movie, but I don't recommend it for children under 13 at all.

As a Result of Being Computer-Illiterate...

To whom it may concern:

This is your furry pal Jessica here, and I am breaking into the reviews to point out that I am not a computer expert. This is why: I have been using an interesting question-asking website called "formspring.me" as a means of attracting different sorts of people by talking about controversial issues, and then subliminally directing them towards a certain new blog of mine. I was attempting, today, to link the questions I answer to my more casual blog, which you can get to by clicking the link on the side that reads "Jessica."

However, since I am also listed as an author for this blog, somehow or another the posts have been ending up here. This is unfortunate, slightly embarrassing, etc. So I want to apologize to anybody who was confused about this, and to anybody who left a comment on these posts, as I have now deleted them as they hold no relevance whatsoever to this blog! Good grief.

However, in keeping with the spirit of this blog: Formspring.me is a very interesting site, where people often ask very interesting questions. Often the questions have to be taken with a grain of salt (or a tablespoon), as there are people out there who will question anything you say or declare a belief in, in ways that are really not very nice. Therefore, in general I recommend it for 15 and up as a way to pass the time. People often ask wonderful questions that really make you think about your answer as well, which I like.

Anyway, that's all for now! Again, I am sorry for the mistake.

Yours,

~Jessica

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

All the well-known superheros have been revamped, CGI-ed and epic-ified. And so, they moved on to the well-known detective, Sherlock Holmes and his side-kick, Watson. Sherlock was played by Robert Downey Jr. and portrayed in much more of an "awesome" light than ever before.

I thought the movie was very well filmed. I liked the angles, the lighting and the CGI shots (which I guess qualifies as filming?) immensely. It had a good mystery feel, although I thought the plot could have had more depth. There were some disturbing images (involving some scenes that contained apparent witch craft) and one not-so-modest scene, but amazingly, a pretty clean movie.

I recommend it for anyone old enough to deal with witch-crafty stuff. It's not the most fantastic movie I've ever seen, but it's really near the top of my "fun-to-watch-not-really-deep" movies list.

"The Shack" (plot spoiling)

A friend handed me this book by William Paul Young with the caution that a few things are "out there," but on the whole it's a very good book that will help me understand the Trinity. I read it on the plane trip home from Montana.

From the back of the book: " Mackenzie Allen Philips's youngest daughter, Missy, has been abducted during a family vacation and evidence that she may have been brutally murdered is found in an abandonded shack deep in the Oregon wilderness. Four years later, in the midst of his Great Sadness, Mack receives a suspicious note, apparently from God, inviting him back to that shack for a weekend. Against his better judgement he arrives at the shack on a wintry afternoon and walks back into his darkest nightmare. What he finds there will change Mack's world forever."

***Plot Spoiling Ahead!***

At the shack, Mack finds God in three physical persons. The Holy Ghost is a floaty shimmering lady, Jesus is a non-handsome man, and the Father is a big black lady. I don't question that the Father could reveal himself to someone like that if he chose to, but I found that this was really just the first step of the book's journey to watering God down and making him chummy.

I liked that part of the book's focus was to show the need for an intimate personal relationship with God. I liked that the other part of it's focus was on forgiveness. But my hackles raised over the portrayal of God as being perfectly harmless. A buddy-buddy who wouldn't hurt a fly. Take this phrase used by him in one of Mack's first interviews with "Papa," (that's what Mack is asked to call God), when Mack unleashed some anger about why Missy got murdered. "Mack, I'm so sorry. I know what a great gulf this has put between us..." "Honey, there's no easy answer that will take your pain away. Believe me, if I had one, I'd use it now. I have no magic wand to wave over you and make it all better. Life takes time and a lot of relationships." That was sympathetic and affectionate, but where's GOD? All-powerful, righteous and sovereign? Imagine God going to Job and saying, "I'm sorry about all your problems, but life takes time and a lot of relationships." ?!?!?! It don't work! Another place, Papa states that he doesn't punish sin. Sin is a punishment of itself. Ahem, excuse me?! What exactly happened to Sodom then? There are more theological errors in the book, and another blatant one that made me gasp was that in the book, Jesus wasn't alone on the cross. The Father and the Holy Ghost were there with him, helping him. He cried, "Why have you forsaken me?" but he wasn't really forsaken. He just felt forsaken. What? So now we are taking scripture and saying, it wasn't like that, he just felt that way? No, that's what made the cross so agonizing, and the cost so high; Christ became sin for us, and on the cross HE BORE THE FATHER'S WRATH!! Not the Father's comfort. There is also a very low view of the church in this book. The church is represented as man's institution, and a rote practice in which God takes little pleasure. This directly contrasts with the scriptural image of the church as His bride. The final thing I'll bring up is that throughout, God is such a servant. Yes, Jesus was a servant, he washed the diciples feet, but to show us how we should then live. In the book, The Father takes constant delight in doing everything for Mack, treating Mack like royalty. It rubbed me backwards. It smelled like a ploy to make people feel good. The whole view of God in "The Shack" is shrunken, dragging him down to a mold that tickles peoples fancies (I see God's depiction as a lady a strongly feminist gesture, despite differing excuses in the book), and can fit into our understanding. Well, Elizabeth Elliot once said that if God were small enough to understand, he wouldn't be big enough to worship, and that's exactly what happens in "The Shack." "Papa" is small enough to understand, but not big enough to worship.

Jane Austen

I read Pride and Prejudice first at age 12. That was just the kind of thing I did. I am a homeschooler, and my mom began teaching me to read when I was five. She always bragged about my reading skills, and I took pride in reading books that were supposed to be over my head. I usually didn’t understand them on the level they were meant to be understood, but I could grasp the story. Since Pride and Prejudice was a rather long and boring story in my 12-year-old opinion, I didn’t bother reading anything else by Jane Austen. Most people were awed enough by my having read Pride and Prejudice, anyway. However, when I was 13, I watched the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice (and that was before the Keira Knightley version was filmed) and decided to read the book again.

By age 14 I had begun to understand the nuances of human interaction enough to be enthralled by Austen’s amazing descriptions and understanding of her characters. They didn’t just come to life, they leapt off the page and turned my world into theirs. I didn’t stop with Pride and Prejudice, I read all her works, and I finished them all too soon. I watched the movies, but couldn’t enjoy them unless every detail was as she’d described it.

I went with trepidation to see the “new” Pride and Prejudice movie starring Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfadyen. I was certain they couldn’t possibly have done Austen’s work justice, but I was wondering how horribly it had been butchered. At the conclusion, I determined that it completely destroyed Jane Austen's story; it had been turned into just another sappy romantic movie that wasn’t for intellectuals, but for females who needed something to watch while they sipped sodas, munched popcorn and devoured chocolate.

But then, on April 1st, 2009, the worst disgrace of all was released. “Pride and Prejudice and ZOMBIES?!?!?!” I screamed, “ZOMBIES?! Really?!?!?” How could anyone so maliciously disgrace Jane Austen’s most popular novel by mixing ZOMBIES in with her classic, genteel story? Some of my friends read it, and tried to tell me about it, but I couldn’t listen.

That’s when I declared myself what I have been, and always will be: A loyal Jane Austen devotee.

Austen’s stories are not romantic stories; they are studies of human character. She understood people, and she describes the reasons behind her characters’ behaviors clearly. So clearly that you realize you’ve seen the same behavior in people that you are around, and your vague feeling about their motivations is exactly explained by Austen’s gently mocking narration.

The very first sentence of Pride and Prejudice is the well-known line “It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man of good fortune must be in want of a wife.” Out of context, that first sentence appears to be Austen’s own view of single men of good fortune. But the very next sentence reads, “However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering the neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.” If you do not instantly comprehend the sarcasm overflowing from Jane’s pen, then you don’t deserve to read another word of her book.

Jane Austen did not write flat, surface stories, like many novels are today. There’s the story, and then there’s the development of her characters, the intricacies of the plot, and her own sardonic explanations of the way life was “supposed to be.” And yes, they all contain romances, because romance is a big part of living. And the hero and heroine get a happy ending because it’s supposed to be entertainment… and what good is entertainment if you end up sad? But the point of the story is not the romance; the point is seeing Lizzy overcome her prejudice and Darcy overcome his pride. Or watching Emma learn the problems with matchmaking, Catherine growing up and Elinor trying to take care of her family after her father's death. And that is what makes every Jane Austen worth reading at least 3 times.

~Lizzie