I wasn't even aware that the new film Coraline was based on a novel. I'd been trying to decide if the movie would be too intense for my kids (particularly the youngest two) and as I was walking through the bookstore one night, I saw the book sitting on a shelf. I bought it and plowed through it in a couple of hours (it is a fairly quick read).

Setting

The setting of the story is a creepy old English house (manor?) that's been subdivided into a series of flats. Coraline lives with her family in one fairly standard flat. A strange old gypsy lives in the flat formed from the attic. And a pair of retired eccentric fortune telling thespians live on the other side of the main level. Between them all is a flat with no tenants that exists behind a brick wall on the other side of a door in Coraline's drawing room.

The layout of the house and its surrounding are a bit creepy in themselves. Coraline is an explorer by trade (is it fair of me to call it a "trade" for such a young girl) and so she's explored the outside of the house as well as some of the rooms of her neighbors. The yard/grounds are run down. The house itself seems to lack any real personality at present but shows evidence of a great personality in days gone by.

Characters

The main character is obviously Coraline Jones. We really get into her head and walk alongside her every action and get to partake of her thoughts, fears and motivations. This intimacy helps accentuate the scary elements presented in the book.

As Coraline encounters other characters, we're always looking at them through her eyes, so it's difficult to see just how strange they may be. Still, even trying to discount Coraline's bias, it's easy enough to see by their actions and their environments that these are definitely strange adults...bordering closely on the line of crazy.

Coraline's parents are fairly standard as far as fairy tale parents go...they are disinterested, uninvolved parents who don't seem to care for Coraline's welfare and who quickly disappear from her life. They are probably the most "realistic" and "sane" characters in the book. They also serve as a sort of commentary on parental involvement...they are definitely not the sort of parents a kid would like to have (nor the sort of parent a parent should try to be).

Miss Forcible and Miss Spink are the next most influential set of characters on Coraline from the "real world." They really sit in a sort of peripheral role but they do read Coraline's fortune in the tea leaves and give her a strange magical talisman. Beyond that, they seem to be just another pair of eccentrics.

Mister Bobo (aka the man upstairs) is given very little treatment in the book except appearing to be very crazy as he talks to the mice he's trying to train into circus performers. As you pay attention to the things the mice "tell" him, it's apparent that he may not be as crazy as we think.

The Other Mother (aka beldam) is the real antagonist in the story. She lures Coraline into the other world and tries to entice her to stay by giving her "everything she wants." It quickly becomes apparent that the Other Mother has ulterior motives and is not just looking for Coraline's "love" as she claims. The Other Mother takes on grotesque characteristics and behaviors that could be truly terrifying to younger children.

The Cat is an interesting character. It seems to serve as Coraline's guide through the other world and a sort of sounding board to explore ideas and learn about the Other Mother and the other world. The cat doesn't seem to have his (her? its?) own motivations and acts very nonchalant towards Coraline, and yet he does seem to have some desire to help her.

Plot

I've heard this story referred to as kind of a creepy Alice in Wonderland. While it does involve a girl going into a strange sort of world where everything behaves strangely...and it does have a talking cat that sometimes gives enigmatic advice...don't think that simply loving Alice means you'll love Coraline. More specifically, if a young child loves the Alice stories, don't view Coraline as a logical transition.

Realize that the comparison includes the word "creepy." This truly is a child's horror story. The plot includes a protagonist diving headlong into a strange and unpredictable world, fighting for her own life/soul and the lives/souls of her parents and three unidentified other children. There are occasional moments of whimsy but they are very short lived, to be replaced by images ranging from the slightly creepy to the skin-crawlingly scary.

As Coraline gets more and more involved in the plot, the events grow more and more scary. The "other" characters she encounters (the actresses, her father, the man upstairs) start out almost as normal as their real world counterparts, but as the story progresses, they each are involved in action that is rather scary.

The actions of the Other Mother are perhaps the most frightening. And even when it seems Coraline has finally won and it's time for the story to wrap up, you begin to wonder if the horror will ever truly end. With only two chapters left in the book, Coraline suddenly faces a new terror and has to overcome a new challenge.

Overall

Overall I really enjoyed the book. It was a very quick read and I did wish that it had another hundred pages to it where it could have gone into more depth about some of the trials Coraline faced, or perhaps introduce some new elements. It also felt like it took perhaps a little long to get started, but that back story really helped, so I probably wouldn't remove it except for the fact that younger readers might get bored before getting into the meat of the tale.

My main curiosity is as to the target demographic. This definitely seemed a bit more scary than the Goosebumps books my son has been reading. I don't necessarily think it's too scary for him but I am still nervous about handing it to him to read on a school night (for fear of a nightmare filled sleepless night). It's definitely a dark read.

Maybe I'm making kids out to be more wussy than they are but this seemed like too much for younger kids...and yet teenagers may be put off by how young the protagonist is and how simplistic the events are.

This is a lot of fun and I can recommend it to older readers with a penchant for the creepy but am hesitant to recommend it to kids under ~10. I'm definitely interested to see how the movie plays out...from the previews I've seen, it looks more entertaining/whimsical than the book (the preview shows numerous "fun" elements that aren't in the book)...which means it might be more accessible to younger kids. If anybody's seen the movie, let me know what you think.

****

3.5 stars

After a year of waiting, Lynette and I finally pulled out Mr. Jack last night and learned to play. The rule book is thicker than I expected but it reads very easily and the game itself is actually quite easy to understand. I've always had a morbid fascination with the Jack The Ripper case and so that theme was a large motivator for me in wanting this game. It's also a great sleuthing/deduction game which is also a ton of fun.

From a high level, this game can be related to Scotland Yard in that one player is the criminal and is trying to escape while the other player is trying to figure out where the criminal is and capture him/her. Despite the high level similarities, Mr. Jack differs from Scotland Yard in many fun and exciting ways.

One of the most unique elements, which also adds immensely to the challenge, is that you can't fully predict which characters will be available to be moved on any turn. All 8 characters are always on the board in full view of each player. On each turn, 4 of those characters will be moved...2 by the criminal and 2 by the detective. Thus, either player can and will move the "Jack" pawn (often to the dismay of the 'jack' player). Each character has a special ability that slightly changes the layout of the board (both for movement and for visibility/invisibility) or the movement of the characters. Because each player takes turns moving all of the various characters, you'll often find yourself needing to change your planned strategy after a character has been moved.

I found the victory conditions of Mr. Jack to be more balanced than Scotland Yard for the most part. With Scotland Yard, the only way for Mr. X to win is to wear down the detective's ticket supply and the only way for the detectives to win is to land directly on the space occupied by Mr. X (which can sometimes happen through dumb luck). With Mr. Jack, the time element comes into play in that after 8 turns, if Jack is still free, then he escapes. We never made it through all 8 turns (though I'm sure it could happen). The victory condition for the detective is (like SY) for the detective to move one character on top of the "jack" character and make an accusation...if correct, the detectives win, if not, Jack wins. For Jack to win, he must first be "invisible" and then move out of one of the four exits on the game board (two of which are always barricaded). Each of these victory conditions is deceptively simple. While playing, we found it difficult to maintain a strategy that would carry out a "simple" victory since each turn changed the layout and the strategy for both players.

I really liked the turn mechanic in that each player (with small exceptions) moved in the same manner for the same number of spaces. However, each character (again with small exceptions) has a special ability that is Mandatory on each turn. Each ability provides distinct advantages to whichever player uses the ability. In addition to having your intended character moved by the other player, you can have your strategy change dramatically when the other player moves a manhole cover, a barricade or a lamp light. It's intriguing how much depth these actions bring to the game.

The quality of this game is fabulous, both in terms of game balance and strategy and in terms of quality components. The cards are thicker, high quality, cardboard...the tokens are colored wood with colored and B&W stickers...the attention to artistic detail and creativity is wonderful.

This is a game with a lot of potential. We started playing later at night and said that we'd play 2 games, swapping roles so each of us could play each side. After the second game, Lynette declared that she didn't think the Mr. Jack player could win (in each game, the detectives had won), so I vowed I'd prove her wrong and she demanded an immediate third game with me as Jack. About 20 minutes later, Mr. Jack escaped the Whitechapel district and proved that there was a strategy for Jack to win (although now that she's seen that one, I'll have to think of another). As we put the game away and prepped for bed, she let me know that she wanted another rematch so she could tromp me the way I'd tromped her.

This is definitely a game I see us playing a lot in the future. I'm excited to find a fun and intriguing game with a lot of depth that can be played quickly by just the two of us. I'm kind of bummed that it's only a 2 player game since I'd love to pull this out for larger group gaming. But at the same time, I'm glad we've found another game for us to play on those nights when we want something deeper but don't have a lot of time.

****
4.5 stars

Beware, this is a long and rambling review more about my kids first time at a "live" play and less about the play itself since the show is well known and the venue is always great. Enjoy.


Lynette and I go to see plays a few times a year. Last summer, the kids asked if they could come with us so I started scoping out plays that the kids might enjoy...that would also be fairly close to home so they wouldn't have to have a super late night. Checking the schedule at Rodger's Lynette & I decided that Wizard of Oz was the one we'd shoot for so she picked up some tickets (great tickets - the kids had their own 3-seat front row all to themselves) in December and have been prepping the kids ever since. By the time we went last weekend, they were all bouncing off the walls with excitement (which made us a little worried about how they'd behave during the show).

We got to the theatre about 15 minutes early to do a pre-show bathroom break and to get the kids settled. They excitedly glanced through their playbill and were thrilled to see all the young kids that would be in the show. They saw the huge industrial strength fans in the corners of the theatre and made their predictions for how the tornado scene would play out. After a brief speech from the producer (in which he announced that they'd be in their new theatre in ~1-2 years...finally...hooray!), the lights went down and the kids fell silent in anticipation.

One of the first things that impressed them was that Toto was actually played by a real live dog that sat fairly obediently in Dorothy's arms, fidgeting a little bit until she gave him a treat. The kids intently watched the banter between Dorothy and her aunt & uncle and the farmhands and then watched as Toto was shoved into a bicycle basket and wheeled off the stage...only to come scampering back a few minutes later. They loved the special effects of the "fire" that Professor Marvel sat by and then were thrilled as they felt the wind of the tornado pulsing around us. After the "storm", Andrew turned around to point out to me that the big fans had been blowing.

Once in Oz, the actors really began to shine. The munchkins were played by a dozen or more kids ranging in age from what looked like 4 to 12. They each had great costumes and wonderful stage presence. Even though some of them forgot the words to their songs and fell behind on the dance steps, they still 'stole the show' during their scenes in that they were so full of energy and excitement that it was difficult not to absolutely love their performances. Each of the younger munchkins also played a flying monkey later and I saw some of the other munckins as Oz guards, Ozians or Winkie soldiers of the witch. The flying monkeys were great...screeching around with their wings, tails and long fingered feet. :)

To continue talking about characters, I really felt that the Scarecrow outshined the rest of the central characters of the journey. Dorothy, Tin Man and Lion did well, but Scarecrow just felt absolutely full of life and energy. He did a great job. Glinda was a lot of fun but I felt she (and I'm not sure if this was the actress' choice or the director's call) behaved more like the conceited/materialistic Glinda of Wicked than the bubbly Glinda of Wizard. Not that she did a bad job or that it was wrong to have her checking her makeup and powdering her nose...it just felt like an odd characterization. The Wicked Witch did a fabulous job as well and was amazing in her vindictive energy and passion for the part. After the show, the kids went up to get a picture with her and she stayed in character and remarked on how her wicked presence was intimidating them. She was great.

I've remarked before at how much I love having Rodger's Memorial right up the road from us. They always manage to bring in wonderful talent in terms of the actors as well as all the behind-the-scenes crew that make up wonderful productions...all of which is completely a volunteer effort, which is doubly amazing. The theatre itself is small which is both a blessing and a curse. It's great to have such intimate seats so that literally every seat has a great view. But at the same time, in order to 'stay alive', they really had to pack the seats in tight so much so that the seats are fairly uncomfortable (especially if, as the producer Dave Hill pointed out, you have a little extra junk in the trunk *grin*). I really look forward to the new location which should have slightly more leg room, hopefully more comfortable seats and yet will only go another 10-12 feet deeper into the theatre for seats so it will still have an intimate feel.

Rodger's does a great job and Wizard of Oz was no exception. I personally felt that the Scarecrow and the Wicked Witch stole the show (except for moments when the kids were on stage, and then I was mesmerized by them). The show has finished its run but I definitely recommend keeping an eye out for its return to Rodger's (they do it every couple of years I think) and I can always, always, always recommend any of their productions (except Forever Plaid which I just can't understand being as popular as it is).

So, for both Wizard of Oz and Rodger's in general, I give an emphatic

*****
5 stars

OK, so I'm very intrigued and excited about the new movie Coraline that comes out today. (Check out the website, it's got lots of cool stuff) I'm a little worried that it might be a little too creepy for my kids which means I might not see it until video.

Is anybody else excited about this film? Has anybody seen it? If you've seen it, what do you think about its "fright" level for younger kids?

EDIT: Adding a Coraline-inspired image:

As I think I mentioned a few weeks ago, I found my long lost iPod. As a result, I've been listening to a variety of podcasts on my daily commute. I recently discovered a favorite.

B.J. Harrison hosts the weekly "Classic Tales" podcast. Not only does he have a very intriguing voice (a must when listening to audio-books, etc.), but he fills the narration with plenty of emotion and the dialog with fun and unique characterization. His classic tales Podcast includes short stories as well as selections from novels and (in a few cases) entire novels themselves (I just finished listening to Alice in Wonderland which included a number of great voices).

I highly recommend this podcast to lovers of literature. His choices are beyond the "standard" gamut of literature that somebody might select...which I rather enjoy. Over the past few weeks I've heard obscure (at least to me) selections from F. Scott Fitzgerald, Charles Dickens and H. G. Wells as well as lesser known authors. Each podcast is approximately an hour and is very professional in its production. He also has for purchase a handful of unabridged audio-books (which I've yet to purchase, though I might by Tarzan to listen to while we're reading it in my lit class this spring).

Go check it out and let me know what you think. And if you have other podcasts you think I might enjoy based on my love of this one, let me know.

While sitting on a dinner date with Lynette the other night, we randomly decided we'd see what movies were playing and try to extend the date. Taken was playing and Lynette was very excited. She called the sitter and we hit the theater.

I knew nothing about this movie until Lynette told me about it. The basic gist is that there's this guy (Brian) who used to be some sort of special ops military elite force but is now retired so he can be near his daughter and "make up for lost time." He's very paranoid (based on real threats he's dealt with) and highly protective of his daughter. After turning 17, his daughter wants to go with a friend on a tour of Europe. Brian is naturally nervous but finally concedes to let her go. And naturally, shortly after arriving, she's kidnapped. She calls her dad while the kidnappers are in the apartment and Brian records the conversation and even talks (threatens) briefly with the kidnapper.

From that point on, the movie continues to increase in intensity. There are brief segments of slow "detective work" as Brian works with old friends and co-workers to figure out who has his daughter and why. These investigative segments are generally fairly short but spaced adequately between the intense action sequences so as to provide a nice breather. Brian rampages throughout Paris on a vendetta to infiltrate the "female trafficking" organization that's taken his daughter and somehow find her and get her back.

The flow of action felt fairly believable throughout the film. There were a few times that felt a little strained or over-the-top, but for the most part, it felt realistic. One of the main things that got to me was his lack of sleep over this multi-day hunt. Most definitely he was running on so much adrenaline that he probably could have kept up the momentum, but when combined with the constant running and fighting he had to do, it got to be a bit of a stretch by the end. It also got a little bit over-the-top when he came out of situations with impossible odds (a la James Bond...one versus 10-20) without being wounded. I was somewhat glad when he finally got shot up and cut up towards the end.

The theme behind the kidnapping (trafficking of women) kept sticking in my mind and I found my thoughts wandering at times. I've seen a few specials and read articles about the actual truth of situations like this...and it makes me sick. It's absolutely disgusting to me that such things go on in our "civilized" world. As a result of these thoughts, I was torn...As Brian encountered each of the players in this world, there were very few that he left alive. Even those who finally gave him the information he was after ended up dead at his hand. The moralist in me is angry at his dispensing of justice in that way. At the same time, I'm reminded of something I've once read about it being "better that one man should perish than that an entire nation perish"...and while these men weren't causing entire nations to perish, their actions were destroying the lives of hundreds and thousands of people.

Overall, I really enjoyed this film. The storyline was tight and well played out. The pacing was great in that the transitions for action to drama and back was well balanced so you didn't get too worn out from non-stop action or too bored with nothing happening and thus concerned for a realistic outcome.

The main complaint I have (and I've decided I may make a separate ranting on this) is the cinematography. Once again, we are presented with film work involving shaky, quick-cut, outrageous POV, etc camera work. I understand the intent of these...trying to put the viewer more directly in the action and make them actually "feel" the intensity of the situation. But for me, it becomes too disorienting and sometimes nauseating. This film didn't do it as often as some others I've seen in recent years, but it was still enough to annoy me when it happened.

Apart from the camera work, I enjoyed the movie and would recommend it to those looking for a fast paced and intense action flick. The theme is a little "dark" but not so heavy as to be a downer.

****
4 stars

Last fall I picked up this book and read it. I handed it to Jason and told him that if he read it and liked it, I'd take him to see it in the theaters. Unfortunately, it was sort of a flash in the pan in the theaters and so once he'd read it, we couldn't find it playing anywhere. We finally rented it last weekend and watched it.

I really enjoyed the book and so I was certainly a little tainted by that enjoyment as I went into the movie. I really like Bill Murray and enjoy Tim Robbins, so I was still hopeful for some good entertainment. In the sense of entertainment, I wasn't terribly disappointed. In the sense of being true to the book and exploring the same themes, the movie let me down a bit.

The sets and costuming used in the movie were great. I enjoyed the portrayal of the city and its inhabitants. The city was fairly close to what I had pictured...crowded, drab, dirty. I hadn't really thought about the lights in the "sky" when reading the book, so the way they were created was a little interesting to me...I liked it.

The actors were good, but felt a little static. Thinking back to the book, it's not too far a stretch since a lot of the characters in the book were a little flat as well. But in the movie, even the central characters fell a little flat. In terms of accuracy, it would have been nice if they were more pale...considering the circumstances of their life. I also expected the mayor to be fatter. Yes, his shirt was tight around the belly, but I pictured him as almost disgustingly obese.

Some of the main elements in the story were given very little treatment, which made me sad. For example, Doon's reading and curiosity were presented, but not to the extent that elaborated on the general ignorance of this closed society. Lina's drawing was presented once, very briefly and without any narration. That light treatment made her drive less intense and believable and made her statement at the end of the movie feel out of place. The actual interpretation of the box and the paper they found was treated differently as well and it made me kind of sad. I would have liked to have seen more in the planning and thinking.

Still, the filmmakers wanted something that would present some exciting action on-screen and I can't wholly blame them. Although, that desire led to a couple of the radical changes from the book. First was the introduction of huge creatures threatening the people. This was on the periphery in the book (so far off that I can't remember it) but in the movie it became a main threat, even to the demise of a character (who dies much differently on the page than on screen). There was also a huge change in the method of the actual EXIT. Again, in trying to add more tension and action and show off some cool technology, the exit sequence involved strange cool technology (still working remarkably well after hundreds of years), the possible death of a peripheral character in the book, and an inconsistency (if Lina and Doon left the city and the pipeworks in the state it existed, it's unlikely that they would have had to actually send their "note" in order to help people begin their own exit).

Overall, I found the movie enjoyable, but not nearly so fun as the book. It felt a little too fluffy and happy and less thoughtful and insightful. It's fun, but there are other movies that may better fill your time...and even better use of your time would be to pick up the book.

**
2 stars

The Water Babies is touted as a fairy tale for a "land baby." Supposedly, the book was written by Kingsley for his then infant son. Even considering an adult reading this aloud to a child, it's difficult to see this book being intended for a terribly young audience. The overall story is whimsical and cute and could be entertaining for a child. But the frequent interjections by the narrator exploring philosophical, scientific, and theological themes are most definitely going to be over the head of any child reader and many/most adult readers. A child would potentially enjoy an abridged version of the story (which is likely what was used for the cartoon versions of the story). And yet, Kingsley definitely intended the book to carry his agenda.

Putting aside the question of intended audience (assuming that "intending" it for children is mostly a ploy to get this book out there and more readily promote his agenda), this book is a very interesting read.

Written amid the hotbed of many scientific pamphlets, essays, and books on evolution, this book attempts to explore many of these theories in an accessible and often satiric way. The story itself involves a young boy, Tom, who is transformed from a human boy into a "water baby" and then needs to "evolve" back into human form. The "evolution" process isn't overt or complex (he doesn't become an ape, as is often the anticipated evolutionary ancestor of humans). Rather, he exists as a water baby in order to be "out of his own world" and undergo a sort of "moral evolution" from a "bad boy" into a civilized, selfless, kind, human boy.

The story was intriguing and had many fairy tale elements not only in that it involved fairies and magic, but also that it posed many morals. It presented core values that people should live by. Two of the main fairies are named "Bedonebyasyouhavedone" and "Doasyouwouldbedoneby" and as such they teach Tom about consequences, the ideas of justice and mercy, and the motivations for being selfless and altruistic in helping your fellow creatures.

Many of the philosophical and scientific ideas are also very interesting to read. There are numerous passages poking fun at evolutionary theorists...both at the arguments for evolution and those against...showing some of the ridiculous holes in each side of the argument.

Where this book was interesting to me is that it showed a way that "evolution" can exist side-by-side with "religion." Even in our modern day, that's at the heart of many arguments. Kingsley essentially presents evolution as a natural adaptive process that creatures undergo. And yet, he identifies it not as some random thing that "just happens", but as the effect of a divine creator...a creator all the more divine for having been able to not only "make creatures" but to "make creatures that can make themselves." Just as God set the planets in motion and doesn't have to actively maneuver them around the universe...God has also put life in motion and doesn't have to actively maneuver the adaptations that life undergoes in order to better survive in different situations.

There is one lengthy example given in the book which could give both theologists and evolutionists pause...in this segment, a group of lazy humans essentially move back out into the jungle and become hairy (so as to weather the elements) and their arms, legs, hands & feet modify so as to be better adapted to climbing trees and their laziness causes them to actually lose language over time...the humans essentially become apes. It doesn't seem that Kingsley is suggesting that humans evolved from apes, but this segment in the story opens itself to contradiction despite its satirical nature.

And...back on topic...I don't want to write a diatribe about evolution, even though that is a large underlying theme of this book.

This novel was widely successful and actually became a staple in England's education system for many years. The language is fun and the story is humorous. The digs he takes at the scientific community are funny but often too obscure (fortunately my copy had endnotes to explain a lot of them).

It's not something I'd read over and over. It's also not something I'm going to throw in front of my kids to read as I'm not sure they'd really enjoy it or "get it"...in fact, they'd probably get bored too soon. Maybe once they hit their teens.

***
3 stars