Slither

LINKS
— Overview
— Cast and Crew
— Photo Pages

ABOUT AS FAR FROM GOD AS YOU CAN GET!

Whenever someone says “never� to me, I remind the naysayer that this word will always turn around and bite back eventually. So, when a senior reviewer from Hollywood Jesus asked me if I would take the screening for Slither, I hemmed and hawed for a good thirty seconds before finally deciding that I should give the horror genre another chance. After all, I was really surprised at how much I enjoyed a graphic novel that was recommended to me and have been trying to keep a more open mind. That and the chance of seeing Nathan Fillion (Firefly, Serenity) onscreen again sealed the deal.

James Gunn has written and directed the most hilarious, gruesome, gore-filled, shocking, crude language-spewing, raw action, fast-paced drama that has dripped down the silver screen in some time. Slither is going to knock the socks off of a lot of people and will probably become a horror hit just like Gunn’s other success, Dawn of the Dead. The guy just has a talent for combining the most incongruous elements into pure art. The fact that he and the cast had a great time making this picture is written all over this production. Disclaimer: This movie is NOT for kids. I know teens will see it, but if I were a parent of children under 17, I would not allow them to go.

That said, the movie is beautifully filmed in Vancouver, British Columbia. Slither has all the watermarks of a high quality production—excellent color quality, believable settings, superb camera work, top-notch use of atmosphere, mood, light and darkness, and a very good soundtrack. (Don’t you just have to love a theme song like “I Love You, But Leave Me the F--- Alone� by the Yayhoos?) The plot is purely B-movie horror/sci-fi/romance, but the production quality is genuine high-budget feature flick. The action is campy but not insulting, and sappy only when Gunn allows it to be. Near the end, Sheriff Bill Pardy (Fillion) has a fight with a vicious canine of some type and you can tell it is some inanimate, petrified prop that he is rolling around on the floor with. The first thought that comes to mind is, all the other special effects are so good, why did the director so obviously use a cheesy prop here? The answer is that Gunn is having as much fun with his audience as the audience is having with the movie in general. Pretty much everything you can think of has happened to the characters already and since the end of the film is near, Gunn is admitting that enough is enough.

Another great thing about Slither is that it is hysterically funny! Before the first minute is over, the audience is laughing and this continues through the entire movie right down to the credits. The humor is masterfully written in, around, and through the gross development of the alien beast, the creation of the zombies, the slimy spit, the copious blood, the wormy pupae, and the loss of body parts and comes in multiple forms—the belly laugh that blocks out the next few lines and brings tears to your eyes, the I-don’t-believe-this snort, the terrifying I’m-so-scared-I-have-to laugh, the nervous giggle, and the oh-my-gosh-he-really-isn’t-going-to-do-that chortle! Many reviewers claim that Gregg Henry (who plays the town mayor) has the best lines. I disagree wholeheartedly because Nathan Fillion is a master at delivering the non sequitur. His timing is positively sublime and his use of facial expressions and eye movements are so natural that you just guffaw at what has all the earmarks of a bomb. For instance, after four of the main characters have managed to escape the freshly created zombies and driven down the road in the sheriff’s patrol car, Pardy slams on the brakes and the camera pulls back to show all of the car’s occupants. They are sitting in catatonic shock and as the camera closes in on each face to try and reveal the minds of these traumatized people, Fillion is the first to draw a deep breath and say, “So… how has everyone’s afternoon been?� Perfect inflection, perfect stress on the right words, perfect deadpan expression = production of the perfect laugh.

Okay… spiritual content… hmmm? My friend Jesus was mentioned a number of times, but except for one instance it was never in any flattering way. There is the issue of the existence of pure evil. This creature that invades the body of Grant Grant (husband of the beautiful school teacher and sheriff Bill’s only true love, Starla) is a monster that has traveled the universe for millennia, eating everything of flesh in sight and leaving dead worlds in its wake. A dialogue could be begun discussing how to prepare for the end of the world and what might come after.

However, after thinking about it overnight and all day, I think what we have to look at is the foundation we might be building our lives on. What is there about me that would produce the courage to stand up to the kind of terror these people encounter? How would I act or react if faced with the challenge of fighting for my life or the lives of those I love? Would I find it easier to just give in and allow the organism to slither down my throat and devour me from the inside out? (I told you this movie is gruesome!) Perhaps I’m really begging the question because I don’t believe that Gunn intended to move in any philosophical or theological direction at all. (The closest thing to a theological statement in the script comes when Gregg Henry screams, “This is about as [effing] far from God as you can possibly get!�) But courage is built through trust in something or someone. Who or what that will be makes for an extremely satisfying discussion because it encompasses what foundation that faith is built on and why we think we could stand firm or why we fear we could not.

Personally, I’ve also been asking myself how on earth I could laugh all the way through this movie. It is somewhat troublesome that I haven’t been able to come up with an answer.

CONTINUE
— Overview
— Cast and Crew
— Photo Pages

The Da Vinci Code (Paperback)

Author: Dan Brown
Category: Fiction
Publisher: Anchor
Format: Paperback
Pub Date: March 2006
Price: $7.99
ISBN: 978-1-4000-7917-9

MORTIFICATION OF THE FICTION

Early in life, I was taught the dictum, “Don’t believe everything you read.� After reading The DaVinci Code three times now, I am appalled at the way a work of fiction has become such an iconoclastic point of contention around the planet. As the book appears in paperback this week and is about to be screened around the world by Sony Pictures in May, there has been a resurgence of interest in a story that should have remained just a really good and quick read—made for a rainy Saturday afternoon and a good pot of coffee—but has been turned into one of the new icons of spiritual re-education.

The most shocking thing about this is that Dan Brown can laugh all the way to the bank and probably has… repeatedly! In taking bits and pieces of ideas he has gleaned from his hobby of pursuing conspiracy theories found on the Internet and in the books of other unsubstantiated “historians,� he has perpetrated the biggest hoax on the reading public in a long time. He is one very smart cookie, is Dan Brown. He knows that the average reader will swallow whatever he says because he begins with two stated “Facts.� As soon as that word is read, the mindset is altered. Suddenly, there is a rat in every corner and it is easier to believe that a conspiracy of silence exists and that Christianity is purely a manipulation of male chauvinists, than to try to prove that it does not.

Someone might Google in key words or phrases like, Opus Dei, Priory of Sion, Sir Leigh Teabing, mortification of the flesh, silice, Fibonacci Sequence, or hidden meanings in DaVinci artworks, and they will find an astounding amount of information. This will satisfy most to the point that they believe what Brown proposes must be true and that he has really done an outstanding job of research; but they won’t read enough to see that the sources are repetitive, inconclusive, and do very little to satisfy the thirst for more information—because there is no more. What has happened in The DaVinci Code is that Dan Brown began writing a mystery but got so carried away with his own obsession with the conspiracy theories which tantalize him, that he tried to turn fiction into historical fact. It doesn’t work because none of these theories can be documented. All of the people involved in promoting the conspiracies found in Brown’s book quote from each other in the books they have written. Eventually, if you do enough research, you find that the person or persons who originated the ideas in the first place are long dead and have left no tangible proof—like a parchment, a scroll, a letter, etc.—of what they claim. All we are left to sift through are circular arguments among a small group of people who like to think they are scholars, but are perpetuating their own “facts� based purely on hearsay. Robert Langdon sums up the theme of the entire novel —“Everyone loves a conspiracy.�

For instance, worship of the feminine and worship of nature existed long before the birth of Christianity. Mankind has always fallen prey to the temptation of worshipping the seen rather than the unseen, that which is the created thing instead of the Creator. Long before Constantine came onto the historical stage, Hebrew worship banned and obliterated the worship of gods, goddesses, and nature because they were commanded to do so by Yahweh, the One True God. Christianity before Constantine had female leaders such as Mary Magdalene, who was a disciple of Jesus and the first to see him in his resurrected body; Lydia, who was tutored by the apostle Paul and probably founded the first Christian church in Philippi; the daughters of Philip, who were prophetesses; and Dorcas (or Tabitha), who was such an important disciple in Joppa that God miraculously raised her from the dead through Peter. The Bible clearly supports equal standing between men and women. It is mankind that has allowed the perversion and misapplication of God’s word because of man’s desire to become all-powerful and godlike.

Much that is shameful throughout history has been justified in the name of God and Christianity, but that has no correlation with God’s will as stated in the Bible. The important thing to note is that there are over 20,000 pieces of existing documentation that justify the existence of what is in the Bible. To date, the people who debate the truth of the theories found in The DaVinci Code have not been able to produce one. Every religion—even denominations within Christianity—have traditions that have no basis in scripture but have superceded God’s word and given direction and justification to doctrine and practice. Some are so old that no one really knows how or why they came about anymore.

Aside from the spiritual, Dan Brown has some talent for turning a phrase and plotting out a story but, at least in this novel, his characters are so one-dimensional and (honestly?) stupid that I felt like I was visualizing people who walk around hitting themselves in the head and saying, “Duh…� all the time. Sophie ought to have the Women’s Movement screaming in outrage. Brown presents her as a highly trained and expert cryptographer, yet she fumbles around repeatedly, never seems to remember anything until something Robert Langdon says or does triggers some old memory, and then solves something even before she has all the information she needs. At one point she asks Langdon, “Sangrael… does it have anything to do with blood?� Come on, Sophie! You know three languages!! She is far too constantly confused to be the policewoman and cryptologist that Brown writes her out to be.

By the same token, Langdon has spent his life becoming one of the foremost symbology experts in the world but it takes him pages to see that what he is looking at is a recreation of Leonardo’s “Vitruvian Man� when I knew what Sauniere had done as soon as Brown described the crime scene.

Yes, I think we’ve all been led a merry chase by Mr. Brown. Unsatisfied with a mere 15 minutes of fame, he has chosen to take on the most controversial of subjects, challenging the foundations of religion and faith (primarily Christianity) and thus assuring a long walk in the spotlight. So far he has managed three years. On his website, he claims to be a Christian, but my theory is that the whole book is the apologetic treatise of a lapsed Catholic who has been seriously damaged and disappointed by his church. I understand that the Masons are next. Let the fun begin!

The Roach Approach (DVD)

ROACHES?!!!!!…ROACHES!

You just can’t help but be intrigued by something that comes out of a place named Wacky World Studios, but it was still with great skepticism that I fired up the ole DVD player and prepared to give The Roach Approach a chance. I have to go on record here&mdashI HATE roaches and have a definite predisposition against the whole concept. But, first impressions being what they are, I swallowed my disgust and decided to give creator Bruce Barry an honest chance at selling me on the roach delivery system for the stories of Noah and the ark, Daniel in the lions’ den, and David and Goliath.

Bruce Barry has created a roach subculture under a boardwalk down by the sea (hmmm…sounds like a song lyric) where 3,000 year old Grandpa Lou and Grandma Nana roach entertain their grandson Squiggz and his two friends Flutter and Cosmo with tales from the Bible which teach values such as love, hope, respect, trust in God, faith, and friendship while helping them to persevere and overcome tough circumstances in their own lives. The theme song of the three movies in the collection so far is “Everybody Needs A Little Love.�

Even after watching a little, I still wasn’t completely sold so I decided to watch Barry’s explanation in the special features section. Basically what happened is that Barry returned home one night and was about to obliterate a cockroach crawling across his doorstep when he realized that the cockroach had his purpose in life, too, and so he put his inner child (he has an extremely active one!) to work and developed the roach approach to God’s revelation.

There are now three films currently in the series. Roach Approach: Don’t Miss The Boat! tells the story of Noah and the ark and Roach Approach: The Mane Event! retells the story of Daniel in the lions’ den. Both debuted in August, 2005 and received the Dove Seal Award for Christian family entertainment.

The latest offering, called Roach Approach: Slingshot Slugger, which chronicles the tale of David and Goliath, is available on DVD today, March 21, 2006. The obvious target is the Christian audience, but beyond that, the intent is quite unclear. The press information claims that the stories are “a heartwarming experience the whole family will enjoy.� However, I believe that the focus must be narrowed for a number of reasons.

Overall, the plot line, language, and humor are far too mature and sophisticated for children under five or six unless they have a vocabulary and sense of humor beyond the norms of that age group. It is a real pleasure to see animation that isn’t completely inane and “dumbed down,� but the average toddler will probably wander off to play with toys before five minutes have transpired. I seriously doubt that even having mommy and daddy sitting with them will keep them focused. There is just too much to visualize and correlate and too much scene-shifting for younger age groups to keep up with.

At the other end of the spectrum, children ten and up are the ones too sophisticated to give much time or notice to these movies. They may be intrigued by the music of Christian artists like tobyMac, Michael McDonald, and Nicole C. Mullin, but I just don’t see them remaining with the family after they see what the first few minutes hold—and it would ruin the family experience to listen to them express their opinion.

As for parents… there are some jokes only they will get and that do evoke that “I can’t believe they did or said that� kind of snort, but sitting through the movie will be an obligation born in the recognition that this is quality time spent with the kids; the movie is short, after all, and the popcorn is good so cleaning up the kitchen can wait awhile.

I do applaud the precedent of quality that Bruce Barry has established with these three movies. The animation is first rate and the continuity in background, coloration, and characterization is superb. Barry obviously feels God’s call on his life strongly and he seems very sincere in his desire to reach children in a meaningful way. And okay, so maybe we do need to provide for the diversity of our children and the things that attract them or turn them off.

Me, I prefer talking vegetables; but there are plenty of kids out there who hate vegetables—and so it may be possible to reach them through something that they know tastes yucky and is as unwelcome on a dinner plate as… well, a roach.

The Thief Lord (DVD)

Thief of Time

Although the publicity brief on The Thief Lord claims that this exclusive DVD premiere is a “modern-day fairytale in the spellbinding tradition of the Harry Potter series,� I am afraid I must regrettably disagree. The idea to make best-selling author Cornelia Funke’s novel into film was filled with good intentions (as evidenced by the talent assembled to create, produce, and act out the parts) but the result falls painfully flat. That said, however, I must admit that the cast is remarkable and the children who play the roles will almost certainly find further work in the industry. After all, Emma Watson struggled a bit as Hermione Granger in the first Harry Potter picture, but has matured into quite a great little actress. Several of the children in The Thief Lord either over- or underact, but it is hard to tell if that is all their own doing, or a result of how they were directed, or a combination of the two. It certainly doesn’t hurt to have veteran actors like Vanessa Redgrave (Howard’s End), Jim Carter (Ella Enchanted, Shakespeare in Love), and Caroline Goodall (Hook, The Princess Diaries) present to shore things up. The three are a delight to watch just because of the talent they have for their craft.

The Thief Lord targets the 9-14 year old audience and their mothers, but the way it has come out, I would recommend it for the 7-11 age group…perhaps even a little younger. It is very, very “kid friendly,� and would make a good picture to plug in for entertaining the children on a rainy day or while mom has something particular that she must accomplish. But since I work with the 12-14 year old age group every day in a middle school, I feel very confident in saying that this movie will not hold their attention in spite of the fact that Aaron Johnson (Prosper) and Rollo Weeks (Scipio) are two of the hunkiest teen boys to come down the pike in recent history.

The thematic content of the film is pretty straightforward. After their mother dies, Prosper and Bo (Jasper Harris) are separated. Prosper is sent to an orphanage because his aunt and uncle are interested only in raising the younger Bo as their son. Prosper breaks out of the orphanage, kidnaps Bo from his new home, and they both stow away on various means of conveyance until they reach Venice, which was the place that their mother most loved. In Venice, the two boys quickly hook up with Scipio (the thief lord of the title and a boy who turns out not to be an orphan, but an unloved teen) and are drawn into a “family� of orphans who live in an abandoned theater and fence things they steal from the rich to support themselves. So there is this Oliver Twist-esque theme of thievery that runs through the movie, which is interlaced with the theme of family and the importance of staying together at whatever the cost. Fortunately, Scipio is no Fagin, but just an older child who is seeking love and security, too, so except for a few scenes with the fence, Barbarossa, we are spared too many instances of screaming and child abuse.

The most troubling thing about this film is that the issue of stealing, even as a means of survival, is never satisfactorily addressed. The reason that it was so upsetting to me (which could make it a very real issue with other parents) is that there is a growing trend in our culture today (especially among our youth) where ownership is becoming a matter of callous disregard. I have talked to children and teens that pick up bikes in parks, at school, and around town, and ride them wherever they want to, just dumping them when they are done with them. The administrators at the middle school where I work spend most of their day trying to find “borrowed� cell phones, MP3 players, and expensive tennis shoes or items of clothing in order to return them to their proper owners. It seems to me that the moral compass is shifting badly from true north, and that entertainment that addresses such subjects should not (by its silence) condone what is morally wrong by way of situational ethics. Circumstance simply should not dictate (or be portrayed as dictating) what is right or what is wrong. The Thief Lord has some great opportunities to teach some powerful values without ruining the action and flow of the movie or being preachy at all, but abdicates in favor of yet another chase scene.

On the other hand, the strength and importance of the family bond is given some gratuitous support at the end of the movie, but Prosper’s choice to remain Bo’s brother and not become his father (by use of a time machine) too fleetingly passes by and becomes mostly an afterthought.

Twentieth Century Fox has turned out some really excellent home entertainment and is generally pretty family-oriented. Of recent note is the movie Aquamarine, which is so well done that it may be coloring my disappointment over The Thief Lord.

Sophie Scholl

WHAT PRICE WOULD YOU PAY?

One of the most enjoyable aspects of watching films is being introduced to people whom we never will have the opportunity to know—but deeply wish we could. Sophie Scholl is one of those people.

In the movie Sophie Scholl: The Final Days, Julia Jentsch plays the young German woman who, along with her brother Hans and three fellow University of Munich students, founded the “White Rose� resistance movement in Nazi Germany in 1942. The film tells the story of Sophie’s last six days of life after she and her brother are arrested in 1943 for distributing leaflets denouncing the Hitler regime and trying to renew the wounded spirit of the German people by helping them to see how they had been deceived.

The director, Marc Rothemund, uses a semi-documentary style to shoot the film. It is fabulously well done! The audience with whom I saw the film was not merely transfixed and focused because of reading the English subtitles of this German-language film; it took a good five minutes for anyone to move after the credits had ceased rolling. The impact of the story was perfectly preserved in the very good directing and editing. Not one frame of unnecessary information or one word of unnecessary dialogue or action was included.

Rothemand proves himself to be very skillful at close-framed shots of faces that tell much of the story without the need for dialogue at all. He also uses light and color to great advantage and (except for the judge in the courtroom scene who was the stereotypical picture of the saliva-spitting, vituperative, and insulting Hitler copycat) all the characters speak calmly and with great control, even Sophie’s interrogator, Herr Mohr. (Okay… Mohr does raise his voice a few times, but only when he gets extremely frustrated with Sophie’s incredible strength of character and dominating moral compass).

Throughout the film, Sophie seeks the light of the sky at every opportunity she gets—as she leaves the house in the morning to go to the university, before she is forced into the Gestapo car, as she is about to enter the Gestapo headquarters, as she is marched across courtyards from one part of the building to another, and before she enters the courthouse. When in her cell, she stretches on tiptoe to see as much of the sky as possible. The sky and its natural light represent a freedom in direct opposition to the harsh and unnatural glare of the interrogation lamp and bare light bulbs that represent her imprisonment.

This film is very dark without actually becoming oppressive. The prominent colors are shades of brown, taupe, gray, and the dullness of a German winter sky. Sophie wears the same clothing throughout… a dark skirt, white blouse, and dark shoes. However, her sweater is burgundy, the only thing of bright color in the film besides the starkly red swastika flags hanging from the government buildings. Sophie dons the sweater, or takes off her coat to reveal the sweater, at key times in the film, just as Rothemand shoots the Nazi flag to recapture the attention of his viewers just when they think they will never see color again. The boldness of Sophie’s sweater becomes a metaphor for her determined inner character and her courage to stand out and stand up for the moral right. This is juxtaposed against the gaudy, blood red flags of an immoral, insane, and basically cowardly regime.

As for the character herself, Sophie realizes soon after her arrest that what she is a part of is something much bigger than herself. She actually understands that she is but a small piece of the big puzzle of time and life and accepts, through prayer and a relationship with God, that her seemingly small and insignificant life is a worthy sacrifice for the activities of the White Rose. Hers is not a pragmatic and cavalier “God is in control and I’ll be spending eternity with himâ€� attitude, but a feature-length portrayal of a believable spiritual journey from fear to hope to doubt to panic to reconciliation to acceptance and finally to peace—not only with God, but also with herself.

Sophie knows that the price she is being asked to pay is acceptable and right. I know that there couldn’t have been one person in the audience I was a part of who wasn’t asking the same questions I was: Would I do what Sophie did? What cause would I have enough passion about to die for? Would I be able to remain calm and not become hysterical in the face of relentless questioning? Would I pray the price of my life… willingly? Sophie went to the guillotine peacefully, only wearing handcuffs, but it was not out of resignation. It was in quiet triumph!

Sophie Scholl: The Final Days was nominated for Best Foreign Film in January 2006 but did not win. The winning film, Tsotsi, must have been absolutely phenomenal!

Three INCREDIBLE Young Women: Interviews with the young divas of AQUAMARINE

—1. Overview
—2. Cast and Crew
—3. Photo Pages
—4. Trailers, Clips, DVDs, Books, Soundtrack
—5. Posters (Current Films)
—6. Production Notes (pdf)
—7. Spiritual Connections
—8. Presentation Downloads

The young women in the entertainment business who constantly make the covers of the tabloids, or who are the ad nausea subjects of the daily and weekly TV entertainment shows, paint a picture of what life is like for young starlets that the public is more than willing to accept as a stereotype. The same thing tends to occur in the real world of teen girls, where everyone makes generalizations about their giddiness, lack of sophistication, and their tendency to make inappropriate choices while living only in the moment.

Well… the world has reason to rejoice in refutation of both the above named stereotypes. There are (at least) three young women, who happen to be actresses, who happen to be beautiful, who are dealing with financial issues well beyond that of most of their peers, and who still have their heads firmly and straightly attached.

In recent interviews for the opening of Aquamarine, I had the profound pleasure of meeting the three main characters: Sarah Paxton (Aquamarine, the Mermaid), Emma Roberts (Claire), and Joanna “JOJO� Levesque (Hailey). What they each had to say affirmed the themes of the movie they had helped to create, and also revealed an inner strength of character that was both refreshing and admirable.

Joanna Levesque brightened the room as she entered. As a 15-year-old, she has lost the characteristic “tween� chubbiness and has grown into a sleek, effervescent, and obviously happy teen. When asked if she was as body conscious as her character, Hilary, she laughed and said, “Not at all…I am what I am.� She spoke enthusiastically about her family recently buying their first house in Massachusetts and her long-term goal of releasing a new album every three years so that her music would not get “stuck in a rut,� but rather reflect the experiences of her life as she matures.

Turning to the movie, Joanna explained how close the girls had become as they worked together. They found themselves not only acting out the themes of friendship, loyalty, and love, but also realized that they were indeed the characters they played. Since I had seen the movie prior to the interviews, it was easy to look back and understand why the movie was so good—the actors were living their parts! In fact, Joanna admitted that, “My friends are everything to me. I lean on them.� She, Sarah, and Emma have remained friends and see each other as much as they can within the busy lives that they lead.

On the practical side, Joanna will be exciting to watch as a young entrepreneur. She professed to like guys who are goal-oriented and very focused—“…who want to accomplish something,� she said. She was also adamant about being responsible for herself. She has been learning all she can about her finances, and plans to be prepared to manage them herself when she reaches legal maturity.

Sarah Paxton had an air of being on the brink of a major life transition. Soon to be 18, she has applied to USC and is waiting on the “pins and needles� of any college applicant. She also expressed identity with the rebellion of Aquamarine against her father. Sarah is an only child who is experiencing the difficulty of parents “let[ing] go when you’re an only child and a girl.�

Sarah was not the first pick to play the mermaid, but she went to the audition intent on being herself and accepting the whole thing as a good experience. She was ecstatic when she learned she had landed the part because, “Since I was young, it was my dream to be a mermaid. One of may favorite movies as a little girl was The Little Mermaid.�

The reality of becoming a mermaid turned out not to be so glamorous, however. It took two hours every morning to get Sarah into her tail and after that, she still had two hours of makeup to endure. She had to be carried on, off, and around the set on a stretcher, which she admitted was kind of like being treated like a queen.

Sarah enjoys working in movies, but like Joanna is firmly rooted in living a “normal� life. She has never been tutored while away from the public schools she has always attended, and did all of her own school work while on location in Australia—even keeping up in complex subjects like chemistry. She admits that her friends call her “Granny� because she is such a homebody.

Emma Roberts has the strongest roots in the movie world. She has been on sets since she was two weeks old, making her the least likely of the three to act “star struck� in any way. Coming from a family steeped in movies (father, Eric Roberts, and aunt, Julia Roberts) and soon to become even more famous as Nancy Drew, Emma exhibited the most awareness of these interviews as being “routine�—just part of the job. That did not keep her from being engaged and excited by the questions, however, and she was open and thoughtful with her answers.

Playing a character who had lost both her parents and was about to lose her best friend proved to be difficult for Emma. She spoke of finding it “hard to get into that mode of sadness,� when it is something she has never actually experienced. Emma also professed to being just about as opposite from her character, Claire, as she could possibly be. Neither of these concerns was at all detectable in the movie, which proves Emma's dexterity as an actress.

Most of the interviewers in the room were insistent on gleaning information from Emma about her relationship with her Aunt Julia. The young actress handled the questions with great aplomb saying, “We don’t talk about the industry. She talks to me about regular life things. We just hang out and do the aunt/niece things.� Emma finished by noting, “It’s weird that people care about our lives so much that they have to make things up.�

Emma intends to go to college and would like to study photography and fashion.

After spending only fifteen short minutes with each of these young ladies, several things were apparent:

• All three are deeply steeped in family, and understand the value of putting those relationships first.
• Friendship that is genuine, loyal, true, and lasting is valuable to them all beyond anything money and fame can bring.
• Acting is a wonderful profession, but not the only thing of value in their lives.
• Taking control of their own lives is very important for these girls, and they are proof that the new generation has actresses with brains.

— Overview

Aquamarine: Falling Hook, Line, and Sinker...

—1. Overview
—2. Cast and Crew
—3. Photo Pages
—4. Trailers, Clips, DVDs, Books, Soundtrack
—5. Posters (Current Films)
—6. Production Notes (pdf)
—7. Spiritual Connections
—8. Presentation Downloads

Director Elizabeth Allen has triumphed in her feature-directing debut with Aquamarine! I predict that this film will be the pre-summer hit for those lovely young ladies called “tweens�— those lost in the pre-adolescent fog between childhood and the teen years. Sorry guys… the target audience here is that group of girls, BUT do not refuse to go if someone invites you. (That includes moms and dads, too!) There is plenty of humor for everyone, and there are great special effects with that mermaid tail that will keep anyone interested in this movie.

The real attraction, however, is the way screenwriter John Quaintance has captured the essence of personality for this age group. The characters were so real that for a moment I thought I was sitting back in the office of the middle school where I work. Viewers will come away with a deeper understanding of how these “tweens� think and why they act the way they do. Knowledge always helps build bridges if used appropriately.

Succinctly, the story is of two young girls, Claire (Emma Roberts of Unfabulous) and Hailey (Joanna Levesque, or JOJO to her music fans), who discover a mermaid in the pool of Claire’s grandparent’s dying beach club after a terrible storm. The mermaid, Aquamarine (Sarah Paxton of Darcy’s Wild Life), has run away from her father (incurring his wrath and thus the horrific storm) because she refuses to marry without love. Her father does not believe that true love exists, and gives his daughter two days to prove that it does. Aquamarine enlists the help of Claire and Hailey who are struggling with their own personal friendship crisis—Hailey is about to move to Australia, leaving Claire behind in Florida—and the fun begins.

In the first moments of the film, it is a temptation to think that producer Susan Cartsonis has bankrolled a live-action version of The Little Mermaid. That supposition is quickly defeated as a film with an admittedly modest budget produces some great and complicated special effects and reveals multiple themes that are all developed and handled with great finesse.

The mermaid tail is amazing! From the production notes, I learned that four tails were created so that each scene in which the tail was prominent would be realistic. Jason Baird’s JMB FX Studio (known for work on the two Matrix sequels) really outdoes itself for creativity and imagination. The movie is never ruined by poor special effects and the special effects blend seamlessly into the screenplay—a delight, but not a distraction.

More importantly, however, this film does a quintessential job of exploring the feelings, passions, joys, fears, and overall angst of being a “tween� girl. The friendship between Claire and Hailey is filled with all the true emotions that I remember experiencing with my best friend at that age: shared secrets that no one else understands; dealing with body changes that make you want to hide behind baggy clothing and attract as little attention as possible; absolute dread of separation and loss of the physical bond between you; wanting to be noticed by the cutest boy in the known universe, but hiding from him all the same; warring with your parents because of the clash of their guardianship and your own emerging need to be independent; the pain of having to learn to let go and release the ones you love; learning that love is manifested in many ways…not just the boy/girl thing. The bond in friendship between female people is very complex and very different. This film powerfully resonated with every woman in the screening audience I was with, dominating the conversation when the movie ended and we were walking out of the theater. I also spoke with fathers, brothers, and boyfriends who made comments like, “so that’s why they do that,� or “now I understand a little better where that thinking or behavior comes from.� That’s one reason I encourage men to see this movie, too. You will be entertained (just ignore the screaming, it’s natural for the age!), but more importantly, you will learn some good stuff!

The other major theme of note is the veritable existence of true love. The girls try their best to find Aquamarine the true love of her life. Unlike other movies that leave the audience reeling because it is not likely that an 18- or 19-year-old will find the love of his or her life at that young age, Aquamarine takes the high road, proving that the love of friends—a love that would sacrifice all for the good of the other—is itself one of the strongest and truest of loves. As Elizabeth Allen says, “Ultimately… it’s a film about people standing up for each other and standing by each other through thick and thin.� We all need to be and to have people like that in our lives. We were, after all, made to be relational. I will be one of the first people in line to see Aquamarine when it opens nationwide. I cannot wait to see it again!

Postscript: There is a real hunk in this movie, too. Jake McDorman, who plays Raymond (the target of the girls’ affections) will be appearing soon on a lot of bedroom walls and school binders!

— Overview