Netflix’s New Baby-Sitters Club Series Might Be Just What We All Need

(Warning: contains spoilers)

Netflix recently released a 10-episode series called The Baby-Sitters Club, based on the book series Ann M. Martin began penning in the mid-1980s. As a fan of the books, I was intrigued when I learned this series was in production. After watching the first season in its entirety, I am nothing but pleased.

So... I’ve been a BSC fan for a while. Thirty years, in fact. By the time the summer of 1990 rolled around, I had read at least half of the books and was well on my way to reading all 38 of them. I frequented the local library, checking out any BSC book that was available, and consumed them one after another. Order? I didn’t care about chronological order! So Stacey moved back to Stoneybrook, then left it... it didn't matter. 

Eventually, my parents grew... curious... about my latest interest. After several months of me reading these books (and, likely, nothing but these books) they asked if they, too, might read one of them, to see what they were all about. I happily handed over the one I’d just finished, Mallory and the Mystery Diary. Alas, this turned out to be a poor choice. How was I (a naïve nine-year-old) to know that certain parents might view a see-ants as something potentially sinister? Oh... séance... that’s how you pronounced that? C'mon, all I knew was that Mallory and her friends had attempted to contact a departed soul, had failed at the task, and had moved on. My parents, having only read this one book, were suddenly left wondering if the entire series wasn’t about a group of girls with equal interest in both baby-sitting and the occult. 

Luckily, I was able to convince them that this was the only BSC book to feature a see-ants, and the other 37 books were all about baby-sitting, weddings, beach trips, beauty pageants, secret passages, and trouble with twins. To their credit – and my relief – they believed me. My parents were, to put it nicely, conservative, and if the books had been anything like this new Netflix series, I fear they would have forbidden my watching it. Which is to say, the Netflix series is progressive, avant garde, and exactly what our world needs right now. So I like to think even little nine-year-old me would have found a way to watch it anyway.

The Baby-Sitters Club began in 1986 with five books written by Ann M. Martin. As more were released, the series began to soar in popularity. Eventually there would be over 200 titles, including the regular series, Super Specials, mysteries, and more. This number doesn’t even include the multiple spin-offs, including Baby-Sitters Little Sister and the California Diaries. Of course, Martin didn’t write them all, even though all the covers bore her name. She had some help. The regular series ended with a fizzle (and a literal fire – R.I.P., Ghost of Jared Mullray), and a short pseudo-spin-off called Baby-Sitters Club: Friends Forever commenced for a short while. The only thing people seem to remember about that series is that in it, the girls finally got to graduate from the 8th grade.

Over the years, attempts were made at successfully bringing the series into other types of media. There was a short-lived TV series in 1990 and a low-grossing feature film in 1995. In 2006, Scholastic began publishing graphic novels based on the early BSC books. Raina Telgemeier illustrated the first four books, then passed the torch to Gale Galligan, who has produced three more (with a fourth coming in September). The graphic novels have mostly been faithful to the original series, with a few exceptions, such as bringing Mallory Pike into the BSC much sooner.

Netflix’s new series seems to take a cue from the graphic novels, at least as far as method is concerned. In the beginning, both the graphic novel series and the Netflix series appear to be trying to stay as close as possible to the original book series. However, they soon started carving their own paths. BSC purists may gasp and clutch their pearls (jelly bracelets, charm necklaces, whatever), but the changes are actually quite refreshing, especially as they pertain to making the show relevant and appealing to GenZ/Zoomers. 

Below are a few differences between the new Netflix series and the original books...

*The baby-sitters now have cell phones!

*Stacey’s diabetes treatment is so much better. She wears a glucose monitor/insulin pump instead of having to poke herself. And she can have sugar now!

*The girls’ parents play bigger roles. For example, when Kristy visits Dawn’s house for the first time, Kristy's mom brings her over and stays to converse with Dawn’s mom. This is a far cry from the 1980s protocols, when Kristy might have casually mentioned she was going to a new friend's house after school... but then again, as long as she was home in time for dinner, who cared?

*Diversity is everywhere in the series, and the beauty of it is, they don’t really call attention to it. In the books, it was a big deal that Jessi’s family was Black. Aside from the girls in the BSC being cool with Jessi, it seemed half of Stoneybrook consisted of racists, most of whom took a long while to warm up to Jessi’s family. Moreover, in nearly every book, during the dreaded “introduction” chapter (usually chapter 2), the author would remind us of Jessi’s skin color. Every girl had a thing: Kristy is bossy/likes sports, Claudia likes art and is bad at school, Stacey’s sophisticated, Dawn’s a California girl, Mary Anne’s shy but has a boyfriend, and – oh yes, turn that page! – Mallory is White and Jessi is Black! But don’t worry, they’re best friends despite this maaaajor difference.

The Netflix series has no time or patience for that over-the-top “this person’s different, but we love them anyway” nonsense. Here, Mary Anne is played by a mixed-race actress and Mary Anne’s ethnicity has thus far not been mentioned. Dawn and her mom are Latina. Jessi (who doesn’t appear until the end of the first season) is Black, yes, but nobody bats an eye when she’s introduced, already firmly established as Mallory Pike’s best friend. (I do hope that if this series gets a second season, there’s an episode that addresses racism, because to pretend like Jessi never experiences it, even in this new-and-woke Stoneybrook, would be jarringly unbelievable, sorry to say.)

The diversity doesn’t end with race, though. In the episode Claudia and the Phantom Phone Calls, we’re introduced to Charlotte Johanssen’s two mothers. In Mary Anne Saves The Day, we learn Dawn’s dad is gay – and Dawn is upfront about this, seeming to see her parents’ recent divorce as an inevitable step in allowing both adults to become their authentic selves. Later in the episode, Mary Anne babysits for a little girl named Bailey, who we soon learn (in a very tactful, even subtle way) was assigned male at birth, but is now happiest when wearing princess dresses. Mary Anne never seems fazed by this, and at one point schools some older people who carelessly use the wrong pronouns when referring to Bailey.

Each of these character introductions is handled smoothly and nonchalantly. Transgender babysittees and gay clients? Not even a small deal to these GenZ/Zoomers. This is Stoneybrook of the 21st Century. Gone are the days of people losing their minds when someone who's different comes to town.

*The Netflix series doesn’t erase the social issues presented in the books; in some instances, it even emphasizes the already-established ones. Kristy still fights against her mother’s engagement to Watson Brewer, all while trying to reconcile with the fact that her father never calls or writes anymore. But whereas in the books her sadness is mostly only hinted at, in Dawn and the Impossible Three, Kristy punches a bag of chips in anger, lamenting the fact that everyone else seems to have a dad who cares – everyone but her. 

*Remember the Brewers’ next door neighbor, Mrs. Porter, whom Karen Brewer always insisted was a witch by the name of Morbidda Destiny? Now a fleshed-out character, it turns out Mrs. Porter is Dawn’s great aunt (which makes sense, because Dawn’s mom’s maiden name was always Porter!), and Mrs. Porter doesn’t mind being called a witch, though she prefers the term “spiritual healer.” 

*Claudia’s sister Janine has been transformed from a stodgy genius into a tech geek who speaks in an dry, but eloquent, deadpan. Sure, she’s still a genius, but she’s now anything but boring (except, of course, to Claudia. Ah, sisters.) In fact, now? Janine is kind of awesome.

*The series carries some strong feminist vibes. Kristy is particularly vocal when it comes to disparities between the way men and women are treated.  Claudia decides not to go to art camp, where her crush Trevor Sandbourne will be, and instead decides to join her friends at Camp Moosehead (an updated Camp Mohawk – where everything’s co-ed, now, but all the counselors seem to have gone AWOL.) Boys are present, but they’re not especially important. (Unless, of course, your name happens to be Stacey. But even she'll stand up for herself and put no-good lifeguards in their proper place.)

Those are just a few of the differences between the books and the Netflix series that I noticed upon my first watch-through. Rarely do any of these changes seem particularly jarring -- even to someone like me, who read a good portion of the books as a tween, re-read nearly all of them as an adult, and still occasionally picks them up for fun and/or laughs. There are enough similarities to the original series (along with a few sly nods/Easter eggs) to keep original fans satisfied, but also just the right amount of improvements and changes to allow a whole new generation to feel like The Baby-Sitters Club was meant for them.

So... yeah. My séance-wary parents may have had reservations about letting me have full access to the books, but I strongly encourage parents to let and/or nudge their preteens to take a look at this series. Because Netflix’s The Baby-Sitters Club is exactly the kind of media I think the world needs right now. A show where over half the main characters are POC. A show where trans children are treated respectfully. A show where gay parents are as normal as straight ones. And a show where a group of girls are able to start, run, and kick ass at a successful business. Girl Power indeed!

Some Thoughts On Little Women (2019)

I finally got to see the 2019 version of Little Women the other day, and I have a few things to say.

Roughly 800 years ago (which is to say, back in 2013) I sat down and read the novel Little Women, both volumes. I then wrote this post, in which I talked about the book as well as some of its many film adaptations.

Since 2013, the world has been granted three (3!) new versions of Little Women. 

The first, a 2017 TV-movie starring Maya Hawke as Jo, had all the makings of a masterpiece -- Angela Lansbury as Aunt March, Emily Watson as Marmee, Michael Gambon as Laurie's grandfather. Unfortunately, the acting from everyone else was so stilted and ridiculous that I couldn't even make it past episode one.

The second, a 2018 "modern retelling," featured Lea Thompson as Marmee. I never saw it, and the ratings don't look particularly promising, so I likely never will.

And finally, there's the 2019 version, which boasts the likes of Meryl Streep, Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Chris Cooper, and Laura Dern. It currently has a 95% "fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and it received several Oscar nominations: Best Picture, Adapted Screenplay, Actress (Ronan), Supporting Actress (Florence Pugh as Amy), Music (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design. (As a quick note -- if nothing else, I hope it wins for screenplay and music. The music was beautiful. More on the adaptation in a moment.)

Okay, so spoiler alert, if you haven't seen this version and plan to do so, maybe wait and see it and then come back and read this afterward.

* * *

For the most part, I really enjoyed the 2019 version.

But I can't help wondering... how many people were able to actually follow it?

Because the whole thing begins with the four girls as adults -- Jo in New York, Amy in Paris, Meg with kids, and Beth loitering about.

Then it jumps back in time to when the four sisters are teenagers. Or, in other words, to where the novel begins.

Then it jumps to the future again.

And back. And forth. And back. And forth.

And it's never super obvious WHICH time period they're in whenever a jump is made. If you're incredibly familiar with the story, you can figure it out for the most part. But the clues are so subtle. I'm thinking about other movies that jump back & forth -- Forrest Gump makes the transitions with narration, and Now & Then's two time periods feature completely different actresses. Those are just two films that come to mind.)

Here, the clues are basically: The girls' hair. Pay attention to their hair. Of course, even then, it's not always clear. Does Jo's hair look short  because we're in the time period right after she lobbed it off, or does it just appear to be short because she's got it pulled back? Speaking of hair, would it have killed them to give Laurie a mustache when he got older? They gave Christian Bale one in the 1994 version once he got older and more worldly.

Okay, yes, in some cases you can tell it's the future or the past by paying close attention to the surroundings.  (Is someone in New York? Okay, it's the future.) Other times -- like during two separate visits to the seashore and two instances of Beth being gravely ill -- the two events happening in different time periods are presented as parallels, with quick cuts in between, and it's like... wait!? Stop!? When ARE we?

For a viewer who isn't familiar with the work, were they just left utterly confused?

Well, if you, like me, ARE familiar with the work, and you can get past the constant hopping through time, what you are left with is a version of Little Women that is unlike any that has come before it. (I am considering the films of 1933, 1949, and 1994, as well as the TV versions from 1970 and 1978.) And if I may say so, that's a GOOD thing. Whenever there's a "new" version of a classic work, it BETTER be different and interesting -- otherwise, what's the point?

When I first began to see trailers for this version, my immediate impression was that yes, it was going to be different -- and not particularly true to the book. But honestly, I didn't care. NONE of the films have been 100% true to the book. Several of the older versions had subplots involving Laurie and his Grandfather having a dysfunctional relationship, for example. Even the 1994 version chose to focus on Jo rather than focus on all the sisters in their later years, the way the book does. (This was fine, though, because A) Jo's plots are the best, and B) Nobody cares about your toddlers, Meg. No one!)

So, I have to say, after seeing the full film, I'm surprised how closely it DID stick to the book. If you were to rearrange all the scenes into chronological order, you'd get something very similar to the book.

Oh sure, there are a few differences. One, in this film, Friedrich is played as a little bit younger (mid-30s as opposed to the usual mid-to-late 40s), which I don't mind. Two, in this film, Jo opens a co-ed school, whereas in the book it was an all-boys school. (Again, I like this change.)

But then there was the whole thing about Jo's letter to Laurie towards the end. Jumpin' Jehoshaphat, Josephine March! That was -- I mean, it's not really fair to tease us like that! Make the audience think, Hmm, yeah, this is a NEW version of Little Women, where they might finally make things "right" and get those two crazy kids together! And then it's like, "Nope! Fooled you!" MEAN.

My biggest surprise was that they included several post-marriage scenes between Meg and John, which I don't recall seeing much of before in any of the films. (In the 1994 version, Meg gives birth and that's about it.) Well, no, my surprise was more with the fact that the scenes were tolerable -- good, even!

But perhaps the biggest difference between the book and this film (and the 1994 one, too, if we're being fair) is the overall message.

The book: Morality wins the day! Be good wives, and thou shalt prosper!

This movie's message: Feminism! Bucking traditional roles and going one's own way! You'll never reign in Jo March, oh no!

The 1994 version went in that direction, too, but the 2019 version pushes the message even further. And that's great. We're 150+ years removed from the novel. A movie about four girls growing into "good little wives," and basically dumbing down as they do so, would be insulting, even outrageous, to most Americans today. (Yeah, I'm sure you'd still find a few people who'd be into it, but I'm not sure those people even go to movie theaters in the first place.)

Anyway, first impressions:

*Chronological time-and-space jumping is a little confusing (at least upon a first viewing).

*Acting is great.

*Music is wonderful.

*Story is familiar, and yet presented in a way that's not stale.

*Someone PLEASE teach Eliza Scanlen how to actually look like she's playing a piano. (ETA: Okay, apparently she knows how to play. Hey, let's blame a sound editor instead!)

*I hope it wins an Oscar or two.

Judging By The Covers: "Now A Major Motion Picture!"

In the last few posts, I've talked about some of the reasons why books might get new covers. These reasons include: 1. Entice new readers! 2. New publisher, new cover! 3. Update the outdated! 4. And other reasons! 

 Here's yet another reason -- because the book has been made into a movie!

 A movie tie-in cover can work positively in two main ways. One, it can get people interested in the book itself ("Hey, Tom Hanks is on this cover... I love Tom Hanks! I should read this book!) Two, it can get people interested in the movie. ("Whaaat? There's a Little Women movie? I love the book Little Women! I should go see this movie!")*

Yes! Everybody wins! The publishers/authors sell more books, Hollywood sells a few extra movie tickets, and Average Reader JoeBob McBookerton gets to own a book with a cool cover. What's not to love?

Not all books made into films get the tie-in treatment. I have yet to see an official copy of a Harry Potter book featuring Daniel Radcliffe on a broomstick. Probably because the HP books have sold very well on their own accord. Plus, the HP books and the movies, for a while, were being released one-of-each-per-year. Both did well. It wasn't like we needed an additional reminder that, "Oh yeah, these books are movies, too," or vice versa.

But Harry Potter appears to be the exception. More often than not, an upcoming movie seems to prompt a tie-in cover.

Did you know (gasp!) there are actually people out there who don't like movie tie-in covers?? This article from the New York Times talks about the outcry when The Great Gatsby was given a Hollywood cover when the Leonardo DiCaprio movie came out.

The loathing was real. Personally, I like the tie-in.

In fact, I think I tend to like movie tie-in covers better than the original covers.

Below are some examples of tie-ins I own, alongside one of the book's earlier covers. Shall I compare them?

It took me a while to warm up to the Narnia movies, but I really enjoy them now. Eh, so what if Prince Caspian's supposed to be blonde and, like, a kid? Movie Caspian be Eye Candy, and that's all right with me.

Winner: Tie-in

Four famous girls... and Laurie, the boy two of them loved.

Way to sell it, book people.

Sad news: I looked it up, and all those actresses are now dead.

Winner: Either

I think I'd rather have the tie-in because (to me) it looks better than the original cover. I mean... that one's just so yellow. Plus, Rory Gilmore, yay.

Winner: Tie-In

I bought the tie-in cover before the movie came out, because I liked Anne Hathaway from other things. And, oh my, Anne is the only reason I've kept that version. That movie was a pile of burning rubbish.

Winner: Original

I loved the 2003 movie, so yeah I had the book, but it remains unread. I really need to get on that....

Winner: Tie-In

Both the movie and the book are great. Both covers are fine. I own the tie-in, even though I'm not too fond of Rosie O'Donnell... at least she's tiny.

Winner: Either



Here I prefer the original cover, with its iceberg-esque pillows in front of a starry sky. Of course, it doesn't help that Moustache Dad looks totally dopey over on the right, there.

Winner: Original

Seriously, what is that face?

Okay, I love Garth Williams. His pictures are classic and iconic. And I like how the Dakota Fanning cover pays tribute to it.

Winner: Both!



What are your thoughts on movie tie-in covers? If you have any particular favorites, let me know in the comments!

*I jest, of course, because there are roughly 47 Little Women movies.


Want more covery goodness? Check out:

Judging By The Covers: Anne Of Green Gables

Judging By The Covers: The Baby-Sitters Club

Judging By The Covers: Just As Long As We're Together

Judging By The Covers: Beverly Cleary's "Ramona" Books

Judging By The Covers: Now A Major Motion Picture!

Anticipatory Delight

I did it again. I dreamed about the live action Beauty and the Beast movie last night. This time, Belle was searching for her father in the open ocean, gliding through the calm, navy-blue water while ethereal voices offered whispered guidance and clues to his whereabouts.

Yeah, I've dreamed about this movie at least twice, now. 

I think I might be excited.

Of course, with excitement comes anxiety. What if I have all this anticipation, and then don't like the film? What if it's terrible, and my hopes are dashed, and I feel like Gaston after his proposal to Belle, sloshing around in the mud with a pig on my head?

I'm not a film buff; in fact, I rarely go to the theaters anymore. But every once in a while I'll get excited about an upcoming film. Maybe the movie is based on a book I've enjoyed. Perhaps it's part of a franchise I care about. Or maybe it stars someone I like.

Recently I got to thinking about some of the movies I've looked forward to over the years. Did the film meet (or even exceed) my expectations? Was it a dud? So I brainstormed a list of about two dozen films from the past 20 years that I have, at some point, been excited about, and have now seen. For each one, I've rated what my excitement level was prior to the film's opening. That scale can be seen here:


Molly's Excitement Scale

0- Not interested. In which case, it wouldn't be on this list, so...

1- I was aware of the movie and looking forward to seeing it.

2- I was pretty excited. Watching trailers, keeping an eye on casting, production, etc.

3- I was super excited! Tried to be there on opening weekend!


Also, ratings-wise:

👏 - Exceeded expectations.

👍 - Met expectations.

👎 - Did not meet expectations and/or hold up over time.



The Movies

• Titanic (1997)

Excitement Level: 1. I'd seen the trailer and thought, "I want to see that." 

After Seeing The Film: LOVED IT! It was one of my favorite films for quite a while.  👏

• Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

Excitement Level: 3. I watched every interview and read every article I could.

After Seeing The Film: I really enjoyed it. Saw it twice in theaters, in fact. Was a little disappointed by some of the changes from the book. I'd also wished they'd filmed it sequentially, as Daniel Radcliffe's appearance and voice slightly change back and forth during the film (yay adolescence!) But otherwise, I was quite happy. Expectations met. 👍

• Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

Excitement Level: 3. The momentum from the first movie was still going strong a year later.

After Seeing The Film: I may not have liked this one quite as much as the first, but what the heck, Harry Potter rules! 👍

• Subsequent Harry Potter Films (2004-2011)

Excitement Level: 2. I still went and saw most of them in the theaters, but I think the 1.5-year gaps between some of the films slowed the excitement momentum. 

After Seeing The Films: I enjoyed all of them to varying degrees. The last two (Deathly Hallows) are probably my favorites. 👍

• Freaky Friday (2003)

Excitement Level: 1. I was a fan of the Jodie Foster version, and was interested to see how they updated the story.

After Seeing The Film: Not bad, really, though I don't think I've seen this since about 2005. 👍

• Peter Pan (2003)

Excitement Level: 2. I heard about the movie about a year before it came out. I followed the production, watched trailers, etc.

After Seeing The Film: LOVED IT! 👏

• Ella Enchanted (2004) 

Excitement Level: 2. I was a fan of Anne Hathaway. After I found out she was making this movie, I read the book and really enjoyed it. I remember dreaming about this movie before it came out, too, with dreams about them messing it up.

After Seeing The Film: I liked it upon first viewing, but after re-reading the book and then re-watching the movie, it finally clicked that they are so different. Different as in... the book is good and the movie is not. I tried re-watching the movie a few months ago and couldn't even get through half. 👍/👎

• The Princess Diaries 2 (2004)

Excitement Level: 1. Well, I'd enjoyed the first Princess Diaries movie, so the second would be more of the same, right?

After Seeing The Film: False. It was terrible. I mean, I recall enjoying it the first time I saw it, but it's really quite awful. 👎

• The Polar Express (2004)

Excitement Level: 2. A long time ago in a decade far, far away, I really liked director Robert Zemeckis. He had done four films in a row that I enjoyed (Forrest Gump, Contact, What Lies Beneath, and Cast Away) and I was looking forward to his next offering, which was The Polar Express. There was a four-year dry spell between this film and his previous one, so my anticipation kept growing.

After Seeing The Film: I liked it well enough. I don't rewatch it all that often, but it's a fine holiday film. 👍

• Superman Returns (2006)

Excitement Level: 1. It's interesting, because although I have been a fan of Superman for over half my life, in 2006 we already had Smallville on the air (which I didn't care for) and, perhaps because of that, I couldn't seem to get too excited for this new version of Superman. Sure, I would give it a shot, but I went into it without knowing much about it.

After Seeing The Film: I really liked it! Fun fact: the movie makes a lot more sense if you've (recently) seen the first two Christopher Reeve films beforehand. Good to know... now. 👏

• Nancy Drew (2007)

Excitement Level: 1. I do enjoy those classic books, and have always wished for a good film adaptation. (The 2002 TV-movie was okay.)

After Seeing The Film: Super sadface. I didn't like it at all. 👎

• Beowulf (2007)

Excitement Level: 1. This was Robert Zemeckis's next directorial offering after The Polar Express.

After Seeing The Film: Um, well, that was the last Robert Zemeckis movie I ever saw in theaters.... 👎

• Indiana Jones and the Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull (2008)

Excitement Level: 2. Indiana Jones IV was "in development" forever, so of course when it actually went into production, I was stoked. But as opening day approached, I was a little fearful. I mean, I'd disliked Temple Of Doom, so it was feasible that I'd dislike this Indy film, too. At any rate, it couldn't be better than Last Crusade (one of my favorite films), because that would take a miracle.

After Seeing The Film: The miracle did not happen. At least I liked Crystal Skull slightly better than Temple Of Doom.... But mostly I didn't like it. 👎

• Twilight (2008)

Excitement Level: 3. Let's be honest... I mainly wanted to see this because it was filmed in our area and I my car was a background extra in it. I tried reading the book first and couldn't get through it. But I followed the news and the countdowns and everything.

After Seeing The Film: It was okay, I thought then. I even went and saw New Moon a year later. But I can't sit through it anymore. This film is sooo bland and dumb. 👍/👎

• Ramona and Beezus (2010)

Excitement Level: 3. I've been a fan of Ramona since grade school, and I enjoyed the 80's TV series. I was happy the characters were coming to the big screen. This is another movie that seemed to be in development for a long time, giving me ample time to obsess over it.

After Seeing The Film: I really liked it for what it was. It won't make any AFI lists, but it's a worthy adaptation of the books, and a sweet family-oriented film. 👍

• Tangled (2010)

Excitement Level: 1. Even as a kid I'd hoped Disney would do a version of Rapunzel.

After Seeing The Film: I enjoyed it about as much as I've enjoyed any non-Pixar movie Disney has put out in the last 20 years. It had its good points, it had its meh. I wasn't disappointed, but it didn't become my new favorite Disney film or anything. 👍

• Robin Hood (2010)

Excitement Level: 2. I love the character of Robin Hood, but Russell Crowe? Ick! What to do?

After Seeing The Film: What to do was see it anyway. And say, "hey, that wasn't so bad." 👍

• Tiger Eyes (2012)

Excitement Level: 2. This was one of my favorite books. With any book-to-movie adaptation, one worries that it won't be done right.

After Seeing The Film: There are a few things I would've done differently, but overall it was a nice film and a pretty good adaptation. 👍

• The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Excitement Level: 2. I had seen the previous two Nolan Batman films on DVD, and I'd enjoyed them (especially Batman Begins). As the third movie in the trilogy approached, my excitement grew.

After Seeing The Film: It was fine, but I've never been compelled to re-watch it. 👍

• Man Of Steel (2013)

Excitement Level: 2. I had been hoping for a sequel to Superman Returns, and I knew that this wasn't going to be one, but rather a reboot. Still, it was Superman. I had to check it out.

After Seeing The Film: I wanted to leave the theater halfway in. Sigh. Figured I'd give the sequel (Dawn Of Justice) a chance if I heard good reviews first. Did not hear good reviews. I don't think I'll be revisiting this franchise until the next reboot. 👎

• The Giver (2014)

Excitement Level: 2. I'd read the book a few times and enjoyed it. I follow Lois Lowry on Twitter, so I was aware of the production (which seemed to take forever).

After Seeing The Film: A few differences from the book (notably that the characters are older) but I was pretty satisfied with it. I could have done without the Taylor Swift cameo, though. 👍

• Pan (2015)

Excitement Level: 1. Back in 2003 I was super excited for Peter Pan and then ended up loving it. So I was looking forward to this... until I kept hearing not-so-great things. It even got its premiere date pushed back, which is rarely a good sign. (Well, it worked for Titanic, but....) I finally saw it on cable a few months ago.

After Seeing The Film: I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU COULD RUIN PETER PAN!!!! 

Which is to say I didn't like it. 👎

• Beauty and the Beast (2017)

Excitement Level: 3

After Seeing The Film:

(Written on 3/19/17)

*Expectations met.

*It's not better than the original, but it was fine.

*There are moments that slightly improve on the animated version and ones that tried to improve on the original, but didn't work.

*Hierarchy = Animated Film > Broadway Show > Live-Action Film > > > > > >  The Straight-To-Video Sequels.

*Why were there so many other couplings trying to happen in the movie, huh? Focus on Belle & the Beast, please!

*Gaston using a gun instead of a bow & arrow or a knife was kind of... loud.

*Philippe is a gorgeous animal and there should be more Disney horses, thank you.

*SO MUCH ROCOCO

*Emma Watson's singing voice is very nice.

*Yeah I teared up during the titular song, WHAT?

*I liked Maurice, but wish he'd been slightly kookier.

*Guillotine joke circa Be Our Guest was amusing.

*The Enchanted Book element seemed unnecessary and kind of weird. But also, kind of cool?

*👍

Movies I Saw In 2014

Movies I Saw In 2014

* * * * *
The Adventures Of Tin Tin (2011)

Halfway through this film -- somewhere in the midst of the wild action, goofy mystery, and John Williams score -- a thought struck me: This kind of reminds me of an Indiana Jones movie. And then another thought came: Yeah... but so did Indiana Jones and the Kingdom Of The Crystal Skulls. Then I realized... why, maybe Tin Tin is the movie Spielberg wanted to make all along! Like, he was dying to make an action/adventure/mystery where the characters could move through the world like cartoons, where pesky things like physics and logic didn't always apply. Problem is, he did that with Crystal Skulls. Bad move. Bad movie. Here, because Tin Tin is all motion-capture animationy, it's acceptable. It's kind of fun. And also kind of odd.

* * * * *
Hugo (2011)

Visually, Steampunk Mordred Hugo was very pleasing. Plot-ually, I'm undecided. There are a lot of really cool, fun moments, but as a whole I was left feeling kind of disturbed and dissatisfied. Maybe that'll change upon a second viewing of the film? +Points for Ben Kingsley, -Points for Borat.

* * * * *
Saving Mr. Banks (2013)

Having been a big fan of Mary Poppins and all things vintage Disney, you'd think I would be all over this film -- and yet, because of my love for both things, I was actually not eager to see this. I had already heard/read/seen lots of information about the Disney-Travers acquisition. But it turns out the movie isn't just about that -- it's got this whole time-shifting parallel storyline o'fun about PL Travers as a little girl and her relationship with her father. Which I might have been more keen on, had the father not been played by one of my actor nemeses (Colin Farrell, why?). That said, the Farrelldom is canceled out by the inclusion of one Mr. Paul Giamatti, who plays a driver to Mrs. Travers. In the end, the Disney parts were watchable, and the Mary Poppins-references were fun, but this isn't one I'd watch again.

* * * * *
Frozen (2013)

I wanted to like Frozen. I wanted that very much. And I didn't hate the movie or anything. I actually loved the animation and all the icy effects. Olaf was great. But I sometimes wonder if I'll ever love another animated Disney movie the way I love(d) Beauty and the Beast. The silly thing is, many of the problems I had with Frozen (such as characters using modern catchprases rather than acting all old-timey as they friggin ought) are things that also happen in BATB. Then there are the plotholes. One viewing of Frozen, and I found the plotholes terribly obvious. BATB has those, too, but I didn't notice them till my 40th viewing. So that's the difference, I guess. Also there's nostalgia, too, of course. Or maybe I'm just too dang old & jaded.

* * * * *
The Lego Movie (2014)

The only non-Rifftrax movie I saw in a theater this year was The Lego Movie. I knew nothing about the film going in (well, except, you know... Lego.) I went with my four little cousins and we laughed throughout the film. It was very funny and clever. I've tried to rewatch it since, though, and it doesn't have quite the same effect.

* * * * *
Dirty Dancing (1987)

I may be the one child of the 80's who had never ever seen this movie until this year. I didn't even know what it was about, save for the fact that it had Jennifer Grey and Patrick Swayze and they danced, supposedly dirtily, and maybe fell in love or something. So I finally rented it. I thought the first half of the film dragged. When the two leads started dancing together, things got a bit more interesting. I can definitely see the appeal when it comes to Patrick Swayze being all hot and yummy. But as a film, I dunno. Not overly impressed.

* * * * *
The Giver (2014)

I first read the novel about a decade ago, then again last year -- along with the three other books in the series. I was excited to see the film, even though I knew they'd cast two entertainers/actors I really don't care for (in minor roles, but still.) I was a little nervous to see what changes they would make in the film. That said, I thought it was a good adaptation, although... well... seeing certain things as opposed to reading them can be a bit overwhelming... and certain portions of the movie, though they mirror events in the book, are disturbing. I ended up watching it twice and found myself enjoying it more the second time.

* * * * *
Amelie (2001)

I avoided this film for ages because I'd heard how quirky it was, and generally I try to avoid excessive amounts of quirky. But I'm glad I finally watched it because, while it does have quirkiness, it's also kind of dark, and it's also really fun to watch. The character of Amelie is a lot more likable than I was expecting her to be. She's no saint, but she's no demon either. The whole movie is in French, which somehow I didn't know. And would you know that's not the first time I've inadvertently rented a movie in French? Roll on, subtitles, roll on.

* * * * *
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2011)

I never would've watched this, except my mother insisted I rent it for her. Attack of the British Honored Citizens: Maggie Smith, Judi Dench, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson, and then some! It was a moderately enjoyable film with multiple storylines that seemed a bit confusing at times. I'm sure a second viewing would clear most of that up.

* * * * *
Flipped (2010)

This is a cute film directed by Rob Reiner that's kind of Stand By Me meets The Wonder Years. 1950s & 60s period pieces about kids aren't my favorite thing to watch... I'm trying to put my finger on why. I've seen a bunch of them. Maybe it's because I feel like I'm watching a movie about my parents or something. Well, whatever. This is the story about a boy named Bryce who is arguably more stupid than Kevin Arnold; Juli, who is a bit smarter than Winnie Cooper; and their bumpy, silly, teenage relationship. If you're into nostalgic, awkward coming-of-age movies, you'll probably enjoy it.

* * * * *
Pride & Prejudice (1980)

My unofficial quest to watch every Jane Austen-related movie ever made continues. As far as P&Ps go, while this is nowhere near as good as the Colin Firth version (nothing will ever compare, mind you), it's at least more faithful to the book than the Keira Knightley or the Laurence Olivier versions. However, it also seems low-budget... not surprising as it was a TV movie made in the 70s.  Still, it was fun to see a different adaptation, and I especially enjoyed seeing Judy Parfitt in her portrayal of Lady Catherine.

* * * * *
Welcome To The Dollhouse (1995)

This was another one I'd heard about for years, and kind of avoided for whatever reason. I really don't know what to think of it, now. It was a good film, and Heather Matarazzo was great. But maybe because of the time period it was set in (early-to-mid 90's) and the behavior of her classmates, it struck a nerve... it felt disturbingly familiar. At the same time, I was shocked by the way the main character acted sometimes. Like, one minute I'd feel sorry for her because her family was terrible and she was bullied by pretty much everyone. And other times, I was like... girl, you're horrible, no wonder no one likes you. Then I felt bad for thinking that.

* * * * *
Mrs. Doubtfire (1993)

I'd been wanting to re-watch this for a while, since I follow Lisa Jakub (Lydia Hillard) on Twitter and she is super cool. (And, you know, Robin Williams, R.I.P.) When I finally sat down to watch it, though, it occurred to me that I don't think I'd actually ever seen the whole movie. Maybe I'd just caught parts of it on TV over the years. Anyway, I finally watched the entire thing, and I found it kind of hard to watch. Daniel Hillard's character tries to be funny, but he is just so unlikable. If I were Sally Field, I'd dump him, too! And the things he does in the film are really weird. Dressing as an old woman would be one thing. But lying, manipulating, having woman-to-woman talks with his ex-wife about really intimate things... and trash talking the Pierce Brosnan character constantly. I can understand why he does it, but it's pretty awful. And it's supposedly funny to throw fruit at his head or put pepper (which he's allergic to) on Pierce's food? Daniel is really sadistic. But he loves his kids sooo much, so it's okay? Hmm. I won't be in a hurry to watch it again.

* * * * *
Life Of Pi (2012)

I had a hard time with this film, because I love animals, and Life Of Pi isn't always very nice to them. It respects them, sure, okay, but it also shows several of them dying (and implies the deaths of many others.) Animal tragedies, nooo! But IF you can get past the first, oh, thirty minutes of the film without having a massive panic attack due to animal perishment, you can settle in, relax, and rest assured that things will just be less dreary from there on out. Pi is a survival/adventure story with some spirituality stuff overarching. And there's a tiger. And while he never (spoiler alert!) actually eats Pi, you're always kind of wondering if he might. 

Eye(s) of the Tiger

Judy Blume's Tiger Eyes was published when I was a baby. And when I picked up my first -- and then second, and then 11th -- Judy Blume book, Tiger Eyes was not among them. First I read the Fudge books (Tales Of A Fourth Grade Nothing, Otherwise Known A Sheila The Great, Superfudge, and Fudge-a-Mania). Then I read Are You there God? It's Me Margaret and Blubber. In middle school I was all over Just As Long As We're Together. In my late teens I got hold of Iggie's House, Starring Sally J. Freedman As Herself, Deenie, It's Not The End Of The World, Then Again Maybe I Won't, and Summer Sisters. And then, when all those were taken care of, I was left with just a few not-reads, and one of those was Tiger Eyes. 

The summer I first read Tiger Eyes wasn't a great summer. A friend had unexpectedly died a few months before. Nothing really made sense to me anymore. Then, suddenly, I was immersed in this book about a girl whose father has unexpectedly died. A girl who becomes a mess of grief, fear, and confusion. And then a girl who begins to heal, slowly, and find happiness again. It was deep, it was powerful, and it was exactly what I needed. 

Tiger Eyes begins as Davey Wexler's father has just been murdered, leaving her in a state of shock and emotional despair. Davey's mother decides to relocate the family (which includes Davey's younger brother, Jason) to New Mexico, to live with Davey's aunt and uncle. The relatives are well-meaning, perhaps, but Davey clashes with their strict rules and bizarre beliefs. Meanwhile, Davey's mother breaks down, and she isn't there for either of her children for quite a while. As the mother slowly starts to come back, she begins seeing -- and considering marrying -- a guy the aunt and uncle know. Davey is, of course, horrified. Not only has she lost her father, but she's lost her home, her way of life, and even the mother she knew. 

 But then there is Wolf. Davey has biked out to the canyon and there she meets this mysterious, cute guy, who, over multiple encounters, helps her begin to see beauty in life again. Through Wolf -- and the healing power of Time -- Davey starts to peel away all the layers of regret, hurt, and guilt that are keeping her trapped. Her heart begins to heal. She remembers how much she loves to sing.

Tiger Eyes is a hauntingly realistic book about surviving a horrendous loss, repairing your soul, and moving forward with your life. It's about reaching that point where you realize it's okay to feel happy again. 

And, for the love of all good things, it has now been made into a feature film. It was actually shot a few years ago, but it's taken a while for it to find a distributor, I believe. Tiger Eyes, the film, is currently playing in select theaters around the United States. On June 7th, it will become available on iTunes, Comcast's On Demand, and even more theaters (including one here in Oregon! Hurray!)

I have been waiting so long for this that I'm pretty excited about it.

Now, I know sometimes books don't translate into movies so well. But I'm not especially worried about this one, because it was made with Judy Blume overseeing things. Her son (who previously directed the TV-movie/special Otherwise Known As Sheila The Great) directed this film. And Willa Holland, who playes Davey, is -- from what I've seen -- pretty incredible. 

So yays all around. I'm going to go see it. Will you?

ETA:

Well, I saw it, and I liked it. Several parts made me cry. There are quite a few differences from the book, but... still, it's a worthy film and I'm so happy to have finally seen it. :) I hope there will be many more Judy Blume movies to come.