This isn’t a very detailed review or anything, just my thoughts on said movie.

“Taken” is about a girl who goes to France and is kidnapped by traffickers, and her father who stops at nothing to rescue her. The filmmakers handle the subject matter well and delicately except for a part we fast-forwarded.

But I could only stand to watch the movie once, not because of that, but because of the nature of the violence in it. The violence itself doesn’t bother me (it’s more Jason-Bourne than blood-and-guts), but the girl’s father kills a lot of the people related to her kidnapping – including some who aren’t armed or threatening him. That bothers me.

I like that what saves the girl from an icky fate until her father rescues her is the fact she is still a virgin. Perhaps that will have a good influence on teens (and others) who see the movie. I also like that we can consider how her father stops at nothing to save her, and compare that with our heavenly Father’s love for us. Also, maybe the film will raise awareness about trafficking. I hurt for those girls…

If you want details about positive/negative elements of the movie, read pluggedinonline.com’s review.

Facebook has grown slightly pointless. So many people that I don’t know very well have added me as a friend that any status updates, etc. that I post have to be rather impersonal and shallow (well, they don’t /have/ to be, but I’m not keen on bearing my soul to near-strangers. I suppose it’s a convenient way to contact people, though.

I’m still (yes, still) reading The Watchers by Mark Andrew Olsen. The guy needs to join Clean Place and read MangyCat’s articles on various writing subjects. His writing is pretty bad. There’s too much telling instead of showing and he doesn’t seem to have much of a grasp at all on writing points of view well. A writer should immerse the reader in the character’s point of view. Mr. Olsen does not do this at all. You shouldn’t write like you’re telling a story; you should write in such a way that your reader lives the story. Mr. Olsen’s book is the former. Not to mention it’s hard to relate to, get to know, and like the characters when you never really get in their heads (this is the case with Abby. You do get in Dylan’s head more, which makes him a more interesting character, though he’s a bad guy [for now]). The writer also needs to balance dialogue with action, mainly in the first part of the book. When you write, don’t write pages of dialogue with very few actions. You will usually wear thin your reader’s patience, even if the character is talking about something fascinating (in this case, the character Abby’s dreams and visions). The only thing that keeps me reading is the plot, and the book has finally picked up the pace so I’m reading it more often now. The plot /is/ very interesting, and I think of Mr. Olsen improved in his problem areas, he could be a brilliant writer.

I should probably name this post “The Watchers” since I have a whole paragraph on it and about three lines on Facebook. Oh well.

Have an amazing rest of your life.
- WM

Mom rented “The List” and I watched it on Sunday. It’s based on a book. I imagine the book is far better than the movie, though I haven’t read it. The plot was good, but seemed poorly executed by the filmmakers. I understand the gist of it, but there were some confusing and unexplained scenes. I don’t think I’ll watch it again. But it did nicely emphasize the power of prayer.

I also watched the movie “Kidnapped”, the version done by MasterPiece Theatre based on Robert Louis Stevenson’s book by the same name. I really enjoyed it. The main character is an upright young man of high character and morals, which I found a refreshing change from today’s norm. It’s a long movie, but worth the watch, to me, at least. It’s set in Scotland and the music is lovely, which helps

Speaking of Scotland, yesterday and today I read Wings of Morning, one of the books I checked out at the library. I’ll post my review below, as it’s a bit lengthy. I also finished reading Blessed Child, which is very good. The writing isn’t as good as some of Dekker’s other books, but the story is great. I recommend it.

We went to Borders today because their movies and CDs are all 50% right now (at the location near us. I dinna ken if they are at others). I was going to blog about how good I was, not spending any money…but now I can’t, because I did. I bought Josh Groban’s newest CD, “Awake”, and a CD called “The Music of Japan”, which was only $4…I downloaded some free (and legal) Asian music a few weeks ago and burnt it to a CD, but the CD is crazy and doesn’t play them right, so…*innocent look*

Here’s my review of “Wings of Morning”.

I generally avoid books that look like they’re primarily romances (I like some romance in a book, but not as the main focus), but I hoped the fact that this is set in 16th-century Scotland would redeem it, as well as the fact that it’s Christian fiction (I don’t read romances that aren’t, in hopes that I will avoid unpleasant content).

It didn’t start out promising. I skimmed and skipped in the first chapter (more on that later). But it got better from there. The plot is interesting and the main character is believable (I’m not so sure about the man she falls in love with), if a bit aggravating at times (to draw out the suspense). The writing isn’t very good, but that fact faded into the background as the story drew me in, except for the occasional lifting of the suspension of disbelief.

The bad things happening to the main character began to grow wearying after a point where I just wanted things to be settled. But I finally reached the happy ending (“finally” being the day after I started it, because I actually found it hard to put down).

The reason I skipped parts of the first chapter and parts later on in the book is because of suggestive content. I don’t recommend the book for younger readers.

I’m not sure that, all things considered, I really recommend it to anyone, at least not silly girls like me who are prone to let the romance business (the hurt girl and the near-perfect man falling madly in love and living happily ever after…okay, it never says happily ever after and there are plenty of reasons to believe they had trouble in the future due to the plot, but you get the picture) go to our heads, but if you take the book as entertainment and don’t waste your time getting all day-dreamy and distracted about that, it’s okay. Pardon my cynicism in that area.

There are good parts about trusting and loving God and seeking out and submitting to His will for your life, so you if you read it, you can take that from the story.

It’s the second in a series, but I wouldn’t have known if I hadn’t seen it on the side cover. It stands alone fine.

Have an amazing rest of your life.
- WM

How Sleep the Brave is a novel by J. H. Hunter. The setting is late 17th-century Scotland, and the Catholics are severely oppressing the Presbyterians. Duncan Fenwick sets out to help relieve the oppression and fight for freedom in the land by taking on the role of the mysterious Black Avenger.

This is just my kind of book. It has action, suspense, romance, godly wisdom, a satisfactory end, great dialogue, an abundance of well-crafted moments that made me smile for their sheer well-craftedness…okay, that may be a writer thing. There are a couple of slow parts, but they’re short. The book has a nice pace for the most part. It keeps you hooked but everything doesn’t fly by so quickly that you can’t enjoy it. There are some technical writing errors, but normal people probably won’t notice them and they didn’t bother me too much. The rest of the book makes up for them. The dialogue is written in a Scottish accent that some people may find annoying, but I like that and wouldn’t change it. I started to be quite annoyed by the fact that the author skips a few years near the beginning, but it turned out to be fine. Some people might find Duncan’s “invincibility” to be unbelievable, but that didn’t bother me, either.

I highly recommend it. I want to buy it now (I checked it out from the library).

Have an amazing rest of your life!
- WM

The Arizona Cardinals and the Pittsburgh Steelers play in the Super Bowl tonight. I don’t care much which team wins. Figuring out who to support goes something like, “Well, Arizona has a popular Renaissance festival that the Hanlon-Lees joust at, but on the other hand, swords are made of steel…” As someone else said, I would rather watch a joust. I’m just looking forward to the commercials. I’m rather disappointed that my stomach is still not itself, as I’ve had some sort of stomach bug since Wednesday, so I will be eating saltine crackers and rice instead of the food Mother is making. :p What’s the point of having the Super Bowl if you can’t eat more interesting food? *mope mope*

I watched most of a dog show on TV last night. German shepherds are my favorite breed of dog, followed closely by Great Danes. For quite a while now, I’ve wanted to get a male German shepherd and name it Strider. And then on the dog show last night, I noticed that the male German shepherd in the ring is named Strider! The dog’s show name is “Rohan’s Reward”. Rohan is my favorite culture of Middle-Earth. So it was kind of strange.

I watched “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves” on TV yesterday. HAHAHAHA. Ahem, excuse me. It was…interesting. Keven Costner does not make the best Robin Hood, in my humble opinion. Azim (Morgan Freeman) and Will Scarlet are more likable. And the theme music didn’t fit the movie very well. I think a great score would have made a huge difference. And the sheriff’s and the sheriff’s cousin’s acting seemed a bit over-the-top in a bad way at times (sorry, Colonel Brandon). The witch is icky, but she’s one of the bad people, so I suppose it’s okay…There are a couple of disturbing moments, like when she gets impaled and the scene where the sheriff…eh…the scene where the sheriff and Marian have supposedly just gotten married and the sheriff wants to…uh, take it further. Robin Hood stops him, thankfully, while everyone is still dressed, but I don’t like that part.

Now! For the Robin Hood I /do/ like (but sadly haven’t seen in years):

And I decided to vote for the Arizona Cardinals, because a Clean Place member lives in Arizona.

Have an amazing rest of your life!
- WM

I haven’t read it, but I have read several reviews. This one makes the most sense to me based on everything I’ve heard, so I thought I’d share it: http://www.christianfilmmakers.org/forums/viewthread/1281/

I watched this Monday.

Negative elements:

Scattered cussing and a few suggestive parts, not to mention the whole raising-a-dude-from-the-dead business and everything involved in that. One character is described as a witch but portrayed as good and there’s all that sort of thing. There are a couple of gross parts.

Positive:

Characters make sacrifices for their loved ones, sometimes ones that prove near-fatal.

Overall – I had a cold so I wasn’t paying close attention to the movie. It was weird, though.

We rented this and took it to my brother’s apartment to hang out with him and watch it. I don’t remember it too well since it was over a week ago. You can also check out the review on pluggedinonline.com

Negative elements:

Cussing:  The s-word is used frequently along with a handful of other words.

There’s not much blood, but the violence is disturbing at times,  the most disturbing part being where two people throw a young man off a bridge onto (I think) a street below.

Positive elements:

The main character values human life and does whatever he can to save it, except when:

Questionable elements: The main character shoots and kills two terrorists in cold blood. They were obviously bad men and needing stopping, but I always wonder if that could have been avoided. The main character is also a Muslim.

Overall, it’s an interesting movie, but not one I’d watch again. On the bright side, maybe it will help people to realize not all Muslims want to kill you, and help them think of terrorists as real people and thus perhaps inspire Christians to pray for them more.

But still not the one with Brendon Frasier that was released in theaters. We watched another made-for-TV version tonight with Rick Shroder, Victoria Pratt, Peter Fonda, and Steven Grayhm (who looks just like Matt Damon did when he was younger). Peter Fonda is the only one I’d ever heard of before.

It was less interesting and in-depth and exciting and well-made as the other one we watched. The acting wasn’t as good, either (not that it was stellar in the version we watched the other day, but definitely better than the acting in this one). But on the bright side, the Matt-Damon-look-alike who played the nephew didn’t fall in love with a girl in the center of the earth (I was going to stop watching if he did), and the people who lived there, more like Native Americans than cave-men, weren’t so immoral (the movie didn’t show much at all about how they live, in fact). So it was much better in that respect, but neither versions are worth watching again. My sister saw the new one with Brendan Frasier (I don’t know how to spell his name) in it today – she and a friend rented and watched it – and she said it’s better than both the ones we watched on TV.

This version was made for TV and stars Treat Williams and Jeremy London (no idea who they are). Dad bought it at Wal-Mart for $5 in a set that came with another Jules-Verne-book-based movie (Mysterious Island).

It would have been a nice, fun movie, and started out that way, but it had very disappointing problems:

The handsome young main character man (Jeremy London) turned out to be a jerk – he had a fiance back on the surface, but he “fell in love” (without even getting to know her…how does that work??) with a cave girl in the center of the earth and made out with her. I think they stopped before going all the way because it bothered him that he was being unfaithful to his fiance (Dad was fast-forwarding, of course, and then he was bored because the movie had slowed and fast-forwarded most of their conversation afterward so I’m not sure what all they said about that). But he was still a jerk to forget his fiance like that in the first place because of a pretty face, and get all smoochy with the cave girl. Then he went back and was sick and said the cave girl’s name in his sleep and his fiance wanted to know who Ralnah was but said it was none of her business so never mind (was too her business since she was engaged to him!) and he didn’t tell her, but he didn’t marry her, either (thankfully! He wouldn’t been even more of a jerk if he married her without telling her what he’d been up to), but instead went off on a ship because he felt like wandering. *sigh*

And the rest of the cave people had few if any morals. Not to mention the main characters believed in evolution. I don’t recommend the movie at all. It’s a shame that they put that stuff in there.

Have an amazing rest of your life!
- WM