And continuing in the spirit of the season -- Frozen! Which I actually saw a couple weekends back, but forgot to post about. Anyway.

I should hate Frozen. I really should. It's a blatantly commercialized Disney film with several elements carefully designed to sell toys (hi, cute trolls that otherwise have no role in the plot, hi cute snowman who was less annoying than the trailers suggested) and several other elements clearly designed to make the obviously forthcoming Broadway adaptation much easier. It features princesses, two of them, that can easily be added to the incredibly popular Disney Princess lineup. (I swear, I run into little Disney princesses at the grocery store these days, and I live around Disney employees, not Disney tourists.) It has two scenes that can be made into Disney rides.

Essentially, it is as if Disney employees sat down and said, ok, what do we need to make money and make as many cross promotional products as possible and how much of this can be thrown into the movie? Got it? Great.

Also, for some reason Disney marketing keeps insisting that Frozen is "inspired" by Hans Christian Anderson's Snow Queen.

They, er, both have snow.

And yet, despite all this –

I loved it.

Primarily because of a seriously awesome scene where one of the princesses announces that she has just HAD IT with being good and SINGS AND SINGS AND SINGS and a GIANT ICE PALACE THRUSTS UP (don't think I didn't notice, Disney) as her Oh So Innocent Costume is transformed into a slinky number that seriously but seriously shows off her legs.

Also, ice art.

You go, Disney Princess. You go.

Like its predecessor, Thor, Thor II: Into Your Wallet Again is a nice, fun, thoroughly cheesy popcorn flick that once again manages to criminally underuse both Anthony Hopkins and Idris Elba, though Hopkins at least seems to be thinking, eh, got my Oscars already, ha ha.

And, like its predecessor, it was in desperate need of snark:

( By the mighty power of Thor, there be snark ahead! )

As a recovering, or perhaps recovered, historian, I don't tend to watch that many documentaries. But recently two caught my attention for entirely different reasons, so I thought I'd blog a bit about both here. My comments got a bit long, so, cuts!

( The Queen of Versailles )

( The Captains – William Shatner's Star Trek documentary )

I had a mad, mad desire to see Clue back when it originally came out, back in the 1980s, a desire absolutely nobody around me shared, for about the same reasons. I wanted to see it because I'd heard that the ending was different at each and every movie theatre, and sometimes at each and every showing; everybody else wanted to skip it because they'd heard that the ending was different at each and every movie theatre, and thus thought, with some reason, that it didn't say much for the middle if viewers and the film could come up with three different endings – especially given that the movie was, in theory, a murder mystery, which by all the classic clichés of the genre should have one, and only one ending, unless on rare occasions you are Hercule Poirot and want to give one ending to the police and another ending to a nice cocktail party on a train. But I digress.

Also, perhaps partly thanks to the three separate ending, the initial reviews sucked.

Anyway, that all meant that I never got around to seeing this until last night, which also meant that I saw it the only way it's shown now – with all three endings. And I have to say, those three endings make it into a surprisingly fun and even good film.

Clue is based on the Parker Brothers board game, but despite this, manages to have a tiny bit of actual plot. It starts off rather slowly, as six guests arrive for a dinner party at a Mysterious Mansion at some Mysterious Time in the 1950s. (Cue dramatic lightning, which, obedient to the plot, goes off exactly when necessary.) It is of course Raining. And Cloudy. With Moody Music and TA DAS! The only thing missing: bats.

To somewhat preserve their anonymity, the guests are given pseudonyms from the board game – Mrs. Peacock, Miss Scarlet, Professor Plum, and so on. (Miss Peacock in her glasses and Miss Scarlet in whatever she's wearing make the costumes.) If this leads you to suspect a Gone With The Wind joke, give yourself a hug. They are greeted by a Butler and a Maid, and are served a rather uncomfortable dinner by the Cook, and meet Mr. Boddy, who may, or may not, be the person who has been blackmailing all of them for various reasons. As I said, it's all kinda slow until Mr. Boddy dies, and then it gears up into high farce, as eventually six (or seven) people end up dead, with six (or eight) potential murder suspects, and dealing with the bodies turns out to be decidedly tricky.

The characters all deeply suspect one another, in part because a) they all have excellent motives, b) they are all mostly strangers and thus have no reason to trust anyone, and c) the directors had rather obviously seen a number of Agatha Christie movies. Indeed, the final three endings are all a fairly classic send-up of the Hercule Poirot final explanation for the murder, done in rather more frenzied style by Tim Curry.

But despite the dead bodies, this film is not really about the murders at all. Indeed, as the film rather cheerfully explains at the end, we can easily think of at least three different ways the murders could have been committed. What makes this particularly awesome is that all three endings get at least one detail completely wrong, meaning that even the one that is supposedly "what really happened," even though that's probably the best and most satisfying ending, may not be not "what really happened."

Which makes this, as said, less about the murders, and more about questioning how much any of us can really know about what happened – and more about how storylines can be manipulated. Who did invite the guests? Who did provide the weapons? (We see them handed out in nice boxes, but we have no idea who put them in the boxes.) And, ok, yes, it was the iron pipe in the library, but who was wielding it?

In some ways, it is also one of the most blatantly sexist films I've seen in awhile – quite apart from the camera angles and deliberate shots focusing on the cleavage of Miss Scarlett and Yvette the Maid, the men – with the exception of Mr. Green, are almost constantly fondling or attempting to fondle Miss Scarlett and Yvette, and to a lesser extent the Cook (before she dies) and Mrs. White (who as a – let us be polite – widow of at least five husbands, is given more of a berth). No one tries to fondle Mrs. Peacock – presumably the glasses, which she seems to be wearing partly as a disguise, are too terrifying – but she, too, drops hints in her dialogue that her life has been deeply constrained by men. And yet all of this is, a, perfectly in character and believable for the 1950s (as compared, say, to X-Men: First Class, which was even more sexist, but in a way that failed to show the actual sexism of the 1960s. Yvette, Miss Scarlet, Mrs. White and the Cook have all, in their own ways, learned to deal with predators; Mrs. Peacock has decided to go along with the system.

And it's undercut by the decision of the film to make the two worst sexual harassers – Professor Plum and Colonel Mustard – the most incompetent characters of the film (with the possible exception of the poor singing telegram girl), no matter which ending of the film you believe.

For all of this, this is a murder mystery with multiple endings primarily cast with comedians (and one rock star). The cast is pretty much all hilarious; if some of the sexual innuendo gets a little much, and a couple of the are the groan out loud sort (Wadsworth: "But he was your second husband! Your first husband also disappeared!" Mrs. White: "Well, that was his job. He was an illusionist." Wadsworth: "But he never reappeared!" Mrs. White: "He wasn't a very good illusionist.") Glad I caught up with it.

Without trying to, I happened to watch this in a theatre one quarter filled with a generally appreciative and polite audience of employees of Universal Studios and excited Twilight fans whose in and post film comments perhaps colored my snark here. (Spoiler: the Twilight fans all felt, without exception, that Twilight is a much, much better movie, a verdict that I shall not comment on further.)

Anyway. This, as the Twilight fans agreed, is a Film With Problems. Not visual problems – it looks great throughout and I think I speak for everyone when I say that we were all just as glad not to have this in 3D. But script problems. Acting problems. (Particularly with Kristen Stewart, where the kindest word I can use is "miscast.") Turning Ray Winstone – yes, that Ray Winstone – into a dwarf problems. Unexpected Bambi and stealing from Japanese anime problems. Accent problems. Christianity problems. (Seriously, film. What?) Snow White not being particularly likeable problems. Me spending the film cheering on the Evil Queen problems.*

As such, it needs snark. A lot of snark.

( So, let us not delay. As always, major spoilers below. )

Shorter version: The best Hulk film, like, ever. Hulk Smash! And I don't even like the Hulk.

Longer version: Things go boom! Tony Stark quips! Thor makes sure we can all see how well cut he is! The one woman on the team isn't given any superpowers, but makes up for it by actually doing kick ass stuff. The film otherwise massively flops the Bechtel test, although it does spend quality time staring at the butts of the three women characters with speaking lines. As films do. (Gwyneth Paltrow arrives briefly for the twin jobs of snarking and showing off her legs.) I would have been offended if we had not gotten some equal exploitive time with Thor and to a considerably lesser degree Captain America and Hawkeye. Frankly, I think the next Thor film should just cut to the chase and call itself, "Thor: The Abs. The Shoulder Muscles. The Butt." to, you know, save time. But I digress.

This is not, to put it mildly, a deep movie. It is, I grant you, a bit more thoughtful than last year's Thor, but that's not saying much. Sure, a couple of characters try to speak deeply about freedom and choices and trust and heroics and an old guy stands up to remind us that Fascism and Dictators are like, bad, yo, and Captain America isn't really sure that the current world is an awesome place, and some Wall Street offices suffer collateral damage, yay, and if you head out to the bathroom you might miss the conversation about Guilt. But whatever. It's not going for deep. It's going for fun.

And that it delivers, mostly thanks to Robert Downey, Jr. (Iron Man) who is like, wait, I get to make fun of my coworkers? More please! Tom Hiddleston (Loki), who apparently looked at the script, said, well, if I have to say this crap, I may as well say it with far too much conviction, and, the surprise, Mark Ruffalo as HULK SMASH. He's also pretty good as Bruce Banner, but, let's face it, HULK SMASH.

AND SMASH AND SMASH. It's the main reason to see the film.

Also, there is a blink and you will miss it Oz reference. Just saying.

Looking forward to seeing the half hour of deleted scenes on the DVD, which apparently include Captain America meeting up with his love interest from the previous film. Also not here: any scenes between Thor and Natalie Portman "I'm not an astrophysicist, I just play one with great abs," although the film does include two lines of dialogue to explain her absence, without using the phrase "Ms. Portman demanded way too much money for a cameo" which was impressive.

Snarky version:

( As a reader service. )

I'm not sure that there'd be any point to reviewing this movie, since it's less a movie and more an exercise in nostalgia. I grew up with Grover and Kermit on Sesame Street, and then we moved to Italy and I had to lose the Muppets for awhile, and then we came back and the Muppets were on syndication in something even funnier that didn't attempt to teach me about numbers and letters and important life lessons, and a couple of them were throwing fish or blowing things up. I could approve of that.

So I'm the target audience, and with a few missteps here and there (I could have done without Fozzie's shoes, and the major life lesson imparted by this movie is that Chris Cooper should never, ever, ever, and I do mean never, ever, ever, ever ever, rap again; that sequence stunned our multiracial audience into stark horror), it worked for me. Oh, sure, the mania and zaniness has been toned down some, and although the guy during Kermit did a great job with Kermit's voice, Miss Piggy and Fozzie were recognizably....different. Not bad, just...different, and as someone who loved loved loved Grover I must say I wish Frank Oz could come out of retirement for the Muppets. Gonzo, though, is the same puppeteer/voice. All together now...Awwwwwwwwwwwww!

But these are quibbles. Overall, this is a movie with a heart, and a few explosions, and one of the hands down best Nirvana covers ever (I admit it took me a second to recognize the song, but once I did I was rolling.)

Oh, this movie was so gloriously, gloriously, terrible.

But before I get into the snark, first, a disclaimer: about midway through the movie, the theatre, for whatever reason, decided to turn on the heat, making me a bit dizzy and forcing me to pause and pull off my sweater, causing me to miss some of the Star Trek moments.

Second, three warnings: one, as reader thette has correctly noted, those of you with an interest in accuracy in your historical costuming should probably avoid this film, however spectacular the hats. Two, those of you with no interest in accuracy in your historical costuming may well find yourself distracted by the hats. And three, seeing this movie while accompanied by a chemist may well result in an upset or distracted chemist who will point out the various places where the film got the physics wrong. This includes some stuff with the hats.

Third, portions of this film were actually – hold your shock – almost ok, particularly the bits focusing on the Three Musketeers who are all fairly decent in their roles, although the actor playing D'Artagnan should never be allowed near a period piece or, for that matter, a camera again.

The rest, however, demands snark. A lot of snark.

( So here we go! Spoilery, even if you've read the book, because, let's face it, it's not much like the book. )

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows, part two

( Cut for spoilers, although you should know that Alan Rickman rocks. )

I had two main thoughts after watching Super-8: one, that this was so far the best movie of the summer (not that the competition has been stellar, I admit; the runner up is Thor, followed by X-Men), and two: Abrams. Cut down on the lens flares. Trust me, you do not want this to be your directorial signature.

( Other thoughts on the film. Very spoilery for the end. )