The Lord of the Rings Part One: The Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien

★★★★★

This is my third time reading this book, but only my first time reading it since having seen the movies. It's been so long since the last time I read it that this reading felt like a re-discovery!

The first thing that stands out to me is how much I had forgotten. I had completely forgotten about Tom Bombadil! I can't believe I forgot such a major character. (Incidentally, a DVD extra explains that Tom Bombadil was left out of the movies because he didn't actually move the story of the Ring along, which I suppose is true.) I had also forgotten how much of the story occurs in the Shire.

I was pleasantly surprised to find that Merry and Pippin played a much larger role in helping Frodo to leave the Shire than was portrayed in the movie. Also unlike their movie characters, they proved to be not unintelligent and rather helpful - though Pippin still acted a fool a couple times. Strangely, though, once the four hobbits got on the road, and particularly after the Company left Rivendell, Merry and Pippin fell into the background, and at times I could almost forget that they were even a part of the Company at all.

One major difference between the book and the movie, it turns out, was the timing at which Aragorn's broken sword was reforged. Apparently, in the book, it occurs right off the bat in Rivendell! In the movies, I don't think it happens until The Return of the King - probably so that the new sword can serve as an immediate harbinger of the King's return.

Anyway, besides finding differences between the movie and the book, this third reading also opened my eyes to some details that I just plain seem to have overlooked in previous readings. Specifically, I didn't know that Galadriel was Arwen's grandmother!! Well, how about that.

I've already started The Two Towers, and I'm looking forward to even more (re-)discoveries.

Alvin Ho: Allergic to Dead Bodies, Funerals, and Other Fatal Circumstances (#4) by Lenore Look

★★★★

Hats off to Lenore Look for tackling a sensitive subject like death. I used to wonder why so many children's stories include a parent or both parents dying, and then I read an article about how stories about death and other difficult subjects allow kids to safely explore emotions and ask questions without having to actually face or discuss their own personal fears.

I think the author did a fantastic job giving young readers a context in which to discuss death, funerals, fears, cultural customs, and much more. Once again, I really enjoyed Flea, Alvin's "pirate" friend, who is well-adjusted despite having physical handicaps. Also, as usual, I like how Lenore Look casually weaved in Chinese words and culture without being heavy-handed about it; Alvin Ho is a second grader who just happens to be Chinese-American.

50/50 (2011)

★★★★★

You'd think a movie about a 27-year-old being diagnosed with cancer would be a real downer, but somehow, it's actually a feel-good movie. We should all be so lucky as to have a friend like Kyle looking out for us, breaking the tension, and making us laugh.

Austenland by Shannon Hale

★

*** Warning: This review contains spoilers! ***

This book is not for Jane Austen fans. Anyone who admires Jane Austen's writing will be sorely disappointed. Jane Austen was a master of dialogue, of showing rather than telling the reader what was going on. The relationships of her characters, the events they experienced, were engaging, meaningful, and sometimes surprising. In this book, however, the writing was uneven and poorly worded (I sometimes had to re-read sentences just to figure out what they were trying to say!), the plot development loose and predictable, and the dialogue actually cringe-worthy. If anything, Austenland is written for young, hip fans of Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy in the BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice.

Austenland's main character is named Jane. Really. It's a bit much, right? And she is nothing like the main characters in Jane Austen's novels, though she flatters herself by comparing herself to them. Elizabeth Bennett was witty and clever, Emma Woodhouse was charming and poised, Fanny Price was self-aware and principled - and none of them needed a man. Even though these characters were surrounded by women who wanted nothing more than to find a suitable husband, they themselves were strong and independent, and they found love and marriage despite the fact that they didn't go looking for it. Jane Hayes, on the other hand, was co-dependent and desperate to find a man. She was the complete opposite of a Jane Austen heroine. Instead of sympathizing with her, I started to side with her ex-boyfriends. Who would want to marry her!? When two guys fell for her at Pembrook Park, I honestly couldn't figure out why. What was so great about her?

Jane Austen's novels gave me a beautiful and charming impression of Regency England, but the "Austenland" described in this book didn't sound remotely interesting to me. Do such places really exist? If so, I hope they plan their retreats better than Mrs. Wattlesbrook did. With a one-to-one ratio of men to women, only three clients in one location at a time, and a lecherous drunk hanging around, the place sounded pathetic, boring, and even a bit creepy.

The book almost redeemed itself with a solid ending when Jane walked away from Mr. Nobley and Martin with her head held high. THAT was a perfect ending, in which Jane learns that she is a smart, confident woman whose self-worth is NOT dependent on having a man. Unfortunately, it all got thrown out the window when the book continued on to its actual ending. Jane DOES need a man after all, and even though she hadn't really felt attracted to this man before, she would throw herself at him just as she had thrown herself at Martin less than three weeks previously. And based on the Jane I met in this book, my money is on the relationship crashing and burning within a month of the plane's landing.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (#7) by J.K. Rowling

★★★★★

I have to admit, I'm rather surprised at myself for upgrading all these Harry Potter books upon re-reading. This time, I changed my rating from 3 stars to 5 stars! I wonder if I read it again, would I want to average it out to 4 stars?

Well, anyway, I can't help it. I'm a fan. I wouldn't have called myself a fan before re-reading the whole series, but somehow, re-reading everything while already knowing the secrets made for a much more satisfying experience, for me. I remember the first time I read this book, I couldn't keep the Horcruxes straight, and I had no idea what role the Hallows played in anything. Everything is much clearer to me this time around.

I love how the books paint whole portraits of so many characters. We not only get to know Harry, Ron, and Hermione, but we also see the growth and development of Snape, Dumbledore, and Voldemort.

And Snape! Oh, Snape! His bravery! His undying love! He really makes the whole series for me.

Even the epilogue doesn't bug me so much now. The first time I read it, I just wanted to gag. Corny, corny, corny. But now, I think, whatever! They're all in a happy place now. Yay!

The only thing that really bothered me in this book was the whole Ministry fiasco. The book made a big point to say how much time and thought went into their planning, but it really seemed like they hardly thought it out at all! I mean, sure, they got inside, but then what? And why didn't Harry just leave his Invisibility Cloak on all the time? Why did he ever bother taking it off? I guess at one point Harry even admitted that they hadn't properly planned what to do once they were in, so maybe we're supposed to chalk it up to their youth and inexperience.

Anyway, I'm kind of sad to have finished the series now. I'm going to miss the wizarding world.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (#6) by J.K. Rowling

★★★★★

*** Warning: This review contains spoilers! ***

It looks like I originally gave this book 3 stars, but upon re-reading, I'm going to increase the rating to a whopping 5 stars! All the Harry Potter books have been better the second time around, but in this one, J.K. Rowling's masterful storytelling really shines.

So, why such a difference in the rating? I think I originally was kind of annoyed at all the teenage romance, but for some reason - I really don't know why - it didn't bother me this time, and I actually rather liked it, even. Mostly, though, I am pretty sure that my original 3-star rating was heavily swayed by my initial dislike for Snape and love for Dumbledore. I probably couldn't get past the former's treachery and the latter's death. This time, of course, knowing the big picture, Dumbledore's death was much more poignant, and it wasn't tainted with raging feelings of betrayal.

Knowing Snape's true motivation for various activities really made for a whole new reading experience. Snape is the best! The revelation of his potion-making genius as the Half-Blood Prince was just scratching the surface of this complex fellow. It's amazing that J.K. Rowling was able to write a book that instilled such a strong sense of dislike for a specific character the first time it's read, and then created entirely different feelings of admiration and pity for the same character the second time!

As I read along, I was pleased to realize that this installment was definitely a case of the book being better than the movie. I really couldn't stand Ginny in the movies - she came across as quiet and mousy, and she never smiled! What's to like about her?! That scene in the movie, in which Ginny helps Harry hide the book in the Room of Requirement - I just wanted to gag. But in the book, she definitely came across as smart, funny, and talented. What's not to like!? Other parts of the book were much more satisfying than their movie counterparts, as well, like how much more developed the horcrux-hunting trip with Dumbledore was in the book than it was portrayed in the movie. Some of my favorite parts didn't even make it into the movie at all, like Tonks and Lupin's troubled relationship, and Fleur's declaration of love for Bill after Bill was bitten by a werewolf. "I am good-looking enough for the both of us!" Love it.

Still, the book wasn't perfect - but how many books are? I didn't quite understand why Hermione insisted that taking the luck potion wouldn't help Harry in his investigation of Malfoy. Harry knew Draco was up to something, so why couldn't the potion have helped him to arrive at the Room of Requirement at just the right time to follow Draco into it? Also, it bothered me that when Harry was horcrux-hunting with Dumbledore, Dumbledore specifically said that fire is used to fight Inferi, but Harry forgot and had to be saved by Dumbledore. I guess that moment of weakness was supposed to remind us that Harry is still just a kid, and at least his usefulness on the trip was confirmed when he successfully Apparated both himself and Dumbledore back to Hogsmeade. (Yay!) Finally, though, why didn't Harry tell Professor McGonagall about the horcruxes? It does seem like now that Dumbledore is gone, someone in the Order of the Phoenix ought to know what Harry is up against!

Only one more book in the series to go, and then I will really miss the wizarding world!

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (#5) by J.K. Rowling

★★★

*** Warning: This review contains spoilers! ***

Ugh. This book really could have been a lot better. The writing was just as good as in previous books, but the story development was unsatisfying. I guess I was supposed to believe that Harry was just a typical teenager who didn't always think clearly or act rationally, but it was just so frustrating reading about his exploits while Hermione or Ron provided the voice of reason that he didn't heed.

I didn't understand why Harry wouldn't tell Professor McGonagall about the corporal punishment that Umbridge was inflicting on him in detention. And why didn't Harry speak up earlier about what happened in the graveyard? He could have saved himself a lot of angst. Probably lots of people didn't believe him because he never spoke in detail about it, which could reasonably be interpreted as suspiciously defensive behavior. When Hermione led Umbridge into the Forbidden Forest, I understand that something had to be done about Umbridge, but I can't help but feel that the centaurs and Grawp were all very ill-used! I can't believe that Harry, Hermione, AND Ron all forgot that Snape was in the Order, and why did J.K. Rowling introduce the two-way mirror in this book in this way!? UGH! That was worst part - if Harry had opened the mirror earlier, he would have had a simple and easy way to communicate with Sirius, and the whole Department of Mysteries fiasco could have been avoided, not to mention Sirius's death. If J.K. Rowling wanted to kill off Sirius, couldn't she have come up with a way to do it without making it all Harry's fault? Or was there some reason that she wanted readers to blame Harry?! Anyway, it also seemed to be a real shame that all those prophecies in the Department of Mysteries got destroyed. And lastly, I can understand why Dumbledore didn't want to tell Harry about the prophecy, but how hard would it have been for him to EXPLAIN why Harry needed Occlumency lessons?! Sigh.

On the bright side, this book did do a good job developing Ginny's character. Finally we see evidence that she was smart, funny, a good Quidditch player, and a powerful witch.

Conviction (2010)

★★★★

An amazing true story. If only we all could be so lucky as to have someone like Betty Ann in our lives - someone who is always on our side, who believes in us and fights for us, against all odds. Uneven Boston accents are a bit distracting, but the pace is good, and so is the acting. I really like the clever title, too.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (#4) by J.K. Rowling

★★★★

*** Warning: This review contains spoilers! ***

In high school, my creative writing teacher once told the class, "Never give up an opportunity to describe a scene." J.K. Rowling must have gotten the same advice at some point because, seriously, 734 pages for a children's book!?!

Not that I'm complaining, mind you. I thoroughly and completely enjoyed immersing myself in the wizarding world! I think the first time I read this book, all the teenage drama really annoyed me. For some reason, though - maybe because the movie did such a great job bringing that drama to life - I didn't mind it all this time around. I dare say I even liked it.

More than any other Harry Potter book so far, The Goblet of Fire had a whole lot going on. Aside from all the usual suspects and school-related activities, J.K. Rowling also gave us the Quidditch World Cup, the Triwizard Tournament, S.P.E.W., Rita Skeeter, Ludo Bagman, and Barty Crouch! I'm pretty sure that the first time I read the book, I couldn't even keep Bagman and Crouch straight. This time, I had a better understanding of the big picture, plus I kept track of all my questions, and happily everything was answered in the end. And what an ending it was! For a few pages there, I actually had tears in my eyes.

I like, too, that in this book, Harry received some words of wisdom, some good life lessons, from the adults around him. After the episode in the graveyard, Dumbledore tells Professor McGonagall that Harry should hear what Barty Crouch, Jr. has to say because, "Understanding is the first step to acceptance, and only with acceptance can there be recovery." And in the face of Voldemort's return, Hagrid tells Ron, Hermione, and Harry, "No good sittin' worryin' abou' it. What's comin' will come, an' we'll meet it when it does."

One thing keeps bugging me, though... There seemed to be one glaring flaw in the basic premise of the whole book. Barty-Crouch-Jr.-disguised-as-Mad-Eye-Moody bewitching the Triwizard Cup into a Portkey and then going to extreme lengths to ensure that Harry Potter would compete, not die, and even win the Triwizard Cup seemed excessively complex. Why didn't the fake Moody just turn, say, a book in his office into a Portkey. Then, when the timing was right, he could simply invite Harry into his office for a chat, and in the course of the visit, say to Harry, "Can you pass me that book please?" Easy peasy! And Cedric Diggory wouldn't have had to die!

Also, once again, I couldn't help but feel a little disappointed when a defining scene in the movie wasn't in the book. In particular, I wish the book had Neville giving Harry the gillyweed, and I thought the way in which the movie had Karkaroff outing Barty Crouch, Jr. was more dramatic than the way it unfolded in the book.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (#3) by J.K. Rowling

★★★★½

Another rating upgrade upon re-reading - from 4 to 4 1/2 stars!

This was my favorite in the series the first time around, and I enjoyed it just as much the second time. The truth about Sirius Black, and his relationship with Harry's father and Professor Lupin, is just fantastic. I love the idea of Moony, Padfoot, and Prongs - it's just too bad about Wormtail.

I know it's not fair to expect J.K. Rowling to have thought up the absolute best way to present every detail, but I have to admit that occasionally, when I got to a scene that was particularly memorable in the movie, I was disappointed that the book's version wasn't as good.

Eclipse (2010)

★★½

I haven't read the books, so I'm not really vested in the story, but I was disappointed by this latest installment. It just dragged. Really slow and melodramatic, everyone speaking in dramatic whispers all the time, Bella always frowning. A lot of bad acting and overacting by the vampires.

Inkheart (2008)

★★★

A rare case in which the movie was actually better than the book!

I liked the book, but I wouldn't say I'm a huge fan, so all the deviations in the movie really didn't bother me. The movie was true to the spirit of the book, and all the condensing made for a well-paced movie.

I was pleasantly surprised that the character of Dustfinger was much more appealing than he was in the book. The Black Jackets were a bit over-the-top - even considering that I expected them to be over-the-top - but their campiness made the movie more suitable for kids anyway. Capricorn reminded me of the Sheriff in the BBC series Robin Hood.

I actually much preferred the movie's ending over the book's ending. The book is the first of a trilogy, and even though I haven't read the second or third books yet, the finality of the movie's ending makes it seem like there are no plans to make movie versions of books two and three.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (#2) by J.K. Rowling

★★★½

This is my second time reading this book, and I'm upgrading it from 3 stars to 3 1/2 stars.

I remember the first time around, I felt like unanswered questions just kept accumulating. Yes, they all got answered by the end, but it was still a bit much to keep track of, especially for a children's book. Since I already knew a lot of the background information this time, I could more easily enjoy the story without being distracted by confusion and curiosity.

This book, unfortunately, has the first "Harry Potter moment", in which Harry does something completely stupid and irrational instead of sensibly going to Professor McGonagall and telling her what he knows. But I guess if he had, there wouldn't have been quite as interesting or exciting an adventure to read about, right?

Muddy Moose Restaurant and Pub - North Conway, NH

★★★★

We picked this place completely by random and had no idea it was so popular! It's definitely a find, and a place I would recommend if you happen to be in the North Conway area.

We arrived on a Tuesday just when it opened for lunch at 11:30 AM. We didn't know how lucky we were to be shown a table right away until we left and saw the long line of waiting customers. Apparently, it's the type of place that sells its own souvenirs, and their decor had a fun lodge theme, with a moose head and bear skin on the wall, and light fixtures made of antlers.

The menu is very broad, with a couple specialty items, and they seem to do everything well. Our Maine Mussels appetizer was delicious, and everyone was happy with their entrees. My dad got Trapper Dale’s Venison Pasta, made with blueberry venison sausage; my mom got Shrimp Scampi, which had a generous portion of large shrimp; Ken got Wild Bill’s Buffalo Enchilada, made with buffalo meat; and I got the River Run Fish Melt, probably the most boring plate, but I just felt like having a fish sandwich today.

Our waitress was nice, too. She saw that the kids were fussy, and she brought over more bread before we had to ask. Sebastien was being difficult because he wanted macaroni and cheese, which wasn't on the menu, and the waitress suggested a pasta with alfredo sauce as a substitute. As it turned out, Sebastien wanted grilled cheese as soon as he saw Isabelle's plate, and the waitress changed the order for us.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (#1) by J.K. Rowling

★★★★

Reading this book the second time around - after having already read the whole series and watched all the movies - is surprisingly even better than reading it the first time!

The wizarding world really is brilliant. J.K. Rowling must have had so much fun creating this world. As a children's book, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is fantastic. The writing is clear and concise, and characters are well-developed. There is humor as well as suspense and excitement, and it doesn't leave any unanswered questions, even if there is a lot going on.

J.K. Rowling obviously - and impressively - had everything laid out from the start. There is a reference to Sirius Black in this book, and a passing mention of Dumbledore defeating Grindelwald. I glossed over those names the first time around, but now that I know who they are, it's cool to see the names dropped into the story before the characters are properly introduced.

The book is rich with details, and, not surprisingly, it is better than the movie. Neville has a larger role than he did in the movie, and Ron is actually quite capable and not at all the "least of the three" that the movie makes him out to be.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (#7, 2011)

★★★★½

Wow, what a lot of action! This climactic ending to the Harry Potter franchise did not disappoint. The battle at Hogwarts was great, and finally we see the real Severus Snape! Alan Rickman totally made the whole series. Still a bit too much thinking required for a movie I value for entertainment, but I think I got it all figured out now.

If only the ending could've been a bit more upbeat. Grown-up Harry, Ron, and Hermione were all subdued and serious, not at all full of the bustle and friendliness and excitement with which I imagined the scene would be filled.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 (#7, 2010)

★★★

The movie had a good opening, but then it sort of fizzled. Three teenagers on a quest to find and destroy horcruxes is a just a bit too much to swallow, even within the wizarding realm. A big deal was made of Ron destroying the locket, but why couldn't Harry have done it himself? And that scene in which Harry tries to cheer up Hermione with a little dancing was just too sappy and out of place. Still, lots of action carried the story along, and I'm looking forward to watching Part 2!

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (#6, 2009)

★★★

I don't know why, but Ginny Weasley never really impressed me. Maybe it's because her character wasn't properly developed in the movies over the course of the series, but the budding romance between her and Harry annoyed me. Overall, though, I did enjoy the scenes involving teen romance.

This movie had a lot of good moments, but it didn't feel so much like a stand-alone movie as it did a bridge between movies. Also, I was disappointed that even when the identity of the Half-Blood Prince was revealed, the movie didn't explain why that person called himself the Half-Blood Prince. It's not a particularly interesting answer, but I'm sure I would have wondered if I didn't already know.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (#5, 2007)

★★★

I had completely forgotten about Dolores Umbrage! Her character was so frustratingly annoying that it actually detracted from my viewing pleasure. And I know Harry's just a kid, but it still seemed like the whole big fight at the Ministry wouldn't even have happened if only he hadn't acted so rashly. I kind of remember the book being even more annoying, but since I've forgotten most everything in the books, I think watching the movie without the book fresh in my mind might have made this second viewing of the movie more enjoyable than the first. The first time I watched it, I thought there were too many characters, too many things going on, and not enough cohesion to hold it all together.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (#4, 2005)

★★★★

I really liked the entertaining portrayal of the dynamics of teenage relationships, and I loved the excitement surrounding the Yule Ball. Plus, it was fun to see a pre-Twilight Robert Pattinson! There was a lot going on in the story - a lot to keep track of - and this being my second time watching the movie, I definitely had an easier time following everything.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (#3, 2004)

★★★★

I really enjoyed this movie, mostly because of the introduction of Sirius Black and Lupin. I love their characters, the strength of their relationship with James and Lily Potter, and the special bond they have with Harry.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (#2, 2002)

★★½

A disappointing follow-up to the first installment. It gets confusing, with too many questions posed along the way that aren't answered until much later.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (#1, 2001)

★★★½

It feels a bit nostalgic, watching this movie after already knowing what's in store for everyone. Harry, Ron, and Hermione look so young! Everything seems quaint, though the novelty factor of this being the first movie to bring the wizarding world to life still had me ooh-ing and ahh-ing over the visuals.

Inkheart by Cornelia Funke

★★★

Ken picked this book up from a co-worker who was cleaning out her bookshelves. I thought it would be fun to read a random and obscure young adult fantasy novel from Germany! But when my dad saw the title, he asked, "Isn't that a movie?" It turns out, Inkheart is a well-known book that has already been made into a movie starring Brendan Fraser and Helen Mirren! Ha.

Anyway, it's a light and easy read. I liked that 12-year-old Meggie, though a central character, is not the only protagonist, and that she is accompanied by several adults. Too many young adult fantasy novels feature pre-teen or early teenage children who are strangely free of parental supervision.

Inkheart emphasizes the sentimental value of books and the joy of reading, and books in general are put on a pedestal. In this way, it actually reminded me of The Shadow of the Wind, even though otherwise the books are quite different, and I think Inkheart did a better, less heavy-handed job of praising books.

The story itself is a good conceit, but throughout the entire book I couldn't help but continuously wonder, "Where does this gift come from? Why do these people have it?" Unfortunately, these questions weren't addressed at all, though I am hopeful that maybe one of the two sequels will provide some answers.

Some characters were over-the-top, but I guess that was the idea, since they originated in a storybook. Dustfinger is an interesting character, but I didn't really get him, and sometimes I just didn't understand his motivations.

Finally, each chapter starts with a quote from a well-known children's book, and other books are frequently referenced in the story. Now I am inspired to read some stories that I somehow never got around to reading before. I guess I'll add them to my Goodreads to-read list!

Ezmè - Washington, DC

★★★★

We had a fantastic tasting menu and a very enjoyable bottle of wine that was chosen by our server. (It was a grenache from Spain.) Portions seemed appropriate for a tasting menu, but even so, I was bursting at the end of our meal, I was so full! The restaurant is Turkish, though none of the dishes seemed particularly interesting or new - they were a familiar mix of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean fare. There was one shrimp dish, and all the other meat dishes (three or four, I can't remember exactly!) had lamb. Dessert was not especially noteworthy, but the service was great.

The Bourne Identity (2002)

★★★½

This could have been a great action-thriller movie, if not for the particularly annoying obligatory superfluous love interest. Matt Damon's role and the premise of the story were great, but Marie was introduced as a flake, and I was never able to warm up to her, even when she managed to be useful.

Cars 2 (2011)

★★

Oh, this movie just doesn't live up to the original. To its defense, it does seem like the creators tried to gear Cars 2 to the same audience who got hooked on Cars when it first came out, and who are now five years older. While Cars is perfect for the pre-school set, Cars 2 - with its explosions, guns, evil mastermind, and more complex plot - is really more appropriate for elementary school-aged kids. But even so, the plot is just so convoluted.

Hereafter (2010)

★★★

*** Warning: Minor Spoilers - But Nothing You Couldn't Have Predicted Yourself ***

Kind of slow. Ken said the whole movie had a European feel to it. The girl in Matt Damon's cooking class annoyed me for some reason, and I felt like all her scenes were over-the-top. Of the three disjointed stories, I much preferred Marcus's. Poor kid. I could really feel for him. When everything finally came together in the end, I was left oddly unsatisfied. I felt like Marcus's communion with Jason was anti-climactic, and what was it supposed to mean that Matt Damon and the French lady were able to shake hands without Matt Damon making a "connection"?

The Tales of Beedle the Bard by J.K. Rowling

★★½

*** WARNING: Spoiler Alert! ***

I'm not sure what I was expecting, but somehow this brief collection of fairy tales from the wizarding world fell short.

The first three stories kind of bothered me because I wasn't fond of the messages they sent. In "The Wizard and the Hopping Pot", it seemed like the wizard only decided to help others out of fear of being punished if he didn't - not exactly the type of motivation we generally want to instill in children. In "The Fountain of Fair Fortune" (which reminded me of The Wizard of Oz), I didn't understand why Sir Luckless was considered worthy of Amata's hand and heart - he tagged along accidentally and practically against his will (he first tried to back out), and he didn't do a single useful thing along the way. Seems to me like Amata could have done a lot better. And then, in "The Warlock's Hairy Heart", the literally heartless warlock actually had a change of heart for a woman's sake, but instead of allowing for a happy ending, the warlock was doomed to pay the ultimate price for his youthful folly - the message being that even if you want to change for the better, you can't.

After those three stories, I took a step back and reminded myself that these are supposed to be fairy tales, and not fables. I mean, what's the worthy message in stories like Sleeping Beauty, anyway?! So I shouldn't be so hard on them. But then, in Dumbledore's notes on "The Tale of the Three Brothers", he clearly discusses a moral - so then, maybe it's not wrong to look for the moral in each story? Then again, I reminded myself that there are fairy tales like Sleeping Beauty that seem to have entertainment value only, and then there are stories like The Three Little Pigs, which does have a moral. So... maybe I should just stop over-analyzing these made-up fairy tales!

The best parts of the book, actually, were Dumbledore's notes. While the fairy tales themselves were only so-so, Dumbledore provided some context and background for each story, and his commentary was usually better than the story itself.

The Frankfurt Files: Tales of an American in Germany by David Conte

★★★½

In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that this book was written by a former high school classmate of mine, so I might not be entirely unbiased in my review.

This is a charming collection of short essays - though maybe "essay" is too formal. Each piece is a few pages long, so maybe they're more like vignettes. (The author based this book on a blog he wrote while living as an ex-pat in Germany, so presumably each piece was originally a blog post.) The author mixes humor with cynicism, and I like his writing style. I also like his choice of words, e.g., the "ignominious photography contest" of which he was the sole participant, in "Horses and Mojitos".

Rather than being ordered chronologically, the essays are arranged by theme, though they are presented in such a way that you imagine they might be a good representation of the author's overall attitude over time. They start out harmless and entertaining enough as the author first gets accustomed to living in Germany. While some of the stories keep German culture in the background, other essays are explicitly about some aspect of German culture (e.g., spas).

Gradually, as the author begins to air his cultural grievances, you start to feel like he's got some kind of chip on his shoulder, or else he's cranky from being perpetually hungry. Still, he is clearly self-aware, he keeps his sense of humor, and he is sufficiently self-deprecrating that you're pretty sure he's not really as big of a jerk as he makes himself out to be. Any American ex-pat who has been frustrated by the ways of his adopted homeland, or who has tried (in vain) to celebrate American holidays while abroad, would find some validation in these pages.

In chapter five - aptly titled "Coming to Terms?" - the author seems to be coming to terms with Germany, and German culture is more center-stage. Here the book has an upswing, and the author is downright happy in chapter six! In chapter seven, the author writes about his first time visiting other European cities, and his excitement is contagious - despite an almost obligatory run-in with petty crime in Italy. (The bureaucratic miracle that follows is enough to restore one's faith in humanity!) These are the stories that fellow travelers to Europe would appreciate.

What made this collection particularly delightful was its in-the-background depiction of the author's relationship with his then-girlfriend/now-wife. It's a storybook romance - boy follows girl to Europe, boy and girl make a great team, boy and girl have spats, boy ups his romantic ante, boy and girl live happily ever after. What's not to like?!

The only thing missing was photos! I sort of wished I could see some of those horse photos from that ignominious photography contest.

The Social Network (2010)

★★★½

I read enough articles about Facebook when this movie came out to know that The Social Network took a lot of liberties. Generally speaking, it bothers me when I can't tell fact from fiction in a movie that is supposed to be "based on a true story" but is more like "inspired by a true story". Justin Timberlake impressed me (my expectations were probably set rather low), but every time a Winklevoss spoke I thought it was Brendan Fraser. The non-linear storytelling and the cutting between scenes of two different lawsuits was a bit confusing at first and took some getting used to. In the end, the movie left me feeling sad over the relationship between Saverin and Zuckerberg.

The Town (2010)

★★★

After Gone Baby Gone, I had pretty high expectations for another Ben Affleck movie set in Boston. Unfortunately, this one fell short. For a guy who plans and executes expertly-timed heists, Doug showed remarkably poor judgment when he started spending time with Claire. It was too out of character, but since that one relationship was basically the crux of the whole movie, I just couldn't get into it. I was unsatisfied with the ending, too. It did have some strong elements, e.g., Doug's personal history, and the way bank robbery was portrayed as a family business.

Waiting for "Superman" (2010)

★★½

Usually, watching a documentary involves me learning lots of new things with a reaction like, "Really?! Wow! I didn't know that!" But in this case, as a former high school teacher, I actually have inside knowledge about the public education system, the topic of the documentary. Armed with additional information, I've decided that this film is a skewed presentation of only some of the facts, and it does not provide all sides of the story.

This documentary highlights some of the problems faced by public schools - mostly inner city schools in poor neighborhoods - and it paints a pretty depressing picture. While it poses the question of whether bad neighborhoods create failing schools, or if failing schools create bad neighborhoods, it doesn't actually make much of an effort to answer that question. Instead, it makes a pretty bold conclusion that bad teachers are the problem, and charter schools are the panacea. The documentary holds up Michelle Rhee as a positive figure, but for me, this film simply reinforced the reasons why I'm not a fan.

In regards to teachers: There was no mention of how these bad teachers came to be. There was no discussion about the lack of good mentoring programs for new teachers, the lack of on-going professional development for experienced teachers, the lack of sufficient evaluation processes, or why school administrators allowed these poor teachers to stay on in the first place. The fact that 50% of teachers leave the profession within the first 5 years - a fact that this documentary leaves out - says a lot about the working conditions, and begs the questions, "Are the good teachers leaving or staying? And why is that?"

In regards to charter schools: This documentary - like many sources that put charter schools on pedestals - conveniently neglects to point out that charter school students, though selected at random from an applicant pool, are a self-selected subgroup made up of motivated kids with involved parents. When quoting the numbers that indicate success, the film also overlooks the fact that in many cases, the size of a particular class is smaller than what it started as; perhaps some students voluntarily transferred to other schools, but it's worth noting that charter schools are allowed to kick out or force out students based on whether or not they meet the standards of the school.

The documentary showcases a handful of families in which very concerned parents enter their kids into lotteries for acceptance into charter schools. As a viewer, you certainly get the feeling that these kids might not "make it" unless they get accepted; you get the impression that if they are forced to enter the public school system, they will fall through the cracks and will be doomed never to succeed. Though I certainly felt disappointed for the families that did not win the charter school lottery, I still couldn't help but feel that because these families were the ones in which the parents do care, because these kids do want an education, they would probably turn out okay (I hope).

To the documentary's credit, I do agree with its portrayal of tenure - it is too easily obtained, it provides excessive job security, and it makes it nearly impossible to get rid of an ineffective teacher.

Persuasion (1971 TV Mini-Series)

★★★★★

What a delightful surprise! I admit, I didn't have very high expectations for this adaptation, what with having already been less than impressed with the other mini-series from the early 1970s. This is the last Jane Austen adaptation on my list, and I'm glad to end my viewing project on a high note.

Every character was very well-cast, and Mrs. Clay and Lady Russell had more significant roles than in other adaptations. I was especially pleased to see that this production went so far as to try to explain why Lady Russell persuaded Anne not to marry Capt. Wentworth so long ago, and why Anne let herself be persuaded.

The adaptation was extremely faithful, and many excellent details were included. The ending even did a good job closing out the Mr. Elliot and Mrs. Clay storyline. Only one major scene was noticeably absent - the one in which Mary's son has an accident, and Anne nurses him through dinner to avoid meeting Capt. Wentworth. But - oh, well! Anne had to see Capt. Wentworth sometime, Mary's indignant nature was well-depicted in many other scenes, and Anne's reluctance to see Capt. Wentworth again was also made clear in other ways.

The Road (2009)

★★★★

A well-made and thought-provoking film, but it's kind of slow and a real downer. I'm with Charlize Theron - what's the point of living in a world like that? Good guys turning bad, even when they don't mean to, is pretty depressing. I suppose the uplifting message is supposed to be that goodness can prevail, and that one should always keep a little room in one's heart for hope and trust. Then again, I thought the ending was pretty lucky - the boy could just as well have been overtaken by bad guys.

I'm kind of surprised I rated this one so highly. All through the movie, I kept thinking I should go to bed. And who needs to spend valuable free time feeling depressed? I guess part of the reason for my high rating is that despite the fact that I wanted to stop watching it, I couldn't actually tear myself away.

Sense and Sensibility (1971 TV Mini-Series)

★★★

This adaptation was kind of a mixed bag. On one hand, I thought pretty much all the characters were well-cast. I did not mind at all that Margaret was entirely omitted (she was only a marginal character in the book, after all), and only Willoughby was not quite as charming as he should have been. On the other hand, I kept feeling disappointed. Some events, particularly towards the beginning, were a bit jumbled. Bizarrely, Elinor and Marianne were often dressed alike, like twin children. In another odd production decision, there is a scene in which Lucy Steele and Elinor are talking, but the sound of Marianne playing the pianoforte in the background is loud and distracting.

This adaptation's interpretation of Lucy was a bit harsh, I think. It was accurate in that Lucy's actions were always selfishly motivated, as in the book, but the mini-series took it one step further by making her transparently insincere.

What really baffled me, though, was why the adaptation bothered changing Colonel Brandon's background story. When he explains to Elinor why he had to rush off to London so many months ago, it's a story that is entirely told in words - no additional scenes are required. To change the story coming out of his mouth seemed to be a change for change's sake.

I liked the fourth and final episode the best. The scene in which Willoughby confesses to Elinor, when he thought Marianne was dying, was well-done. It also did a good job portraying Marianne's growing regard for Colonel Brandon. One drawback, though, is that when Edward showed up at Barton Cottage at the end, he did not adequately explain how or why Lucy's affections were transferred to his brother Robert.

A Jane Austen Education: How Six Novels Taught Me About Love, Friendship, and the Things That Really Matter by William Deresiewicz

★★★½

When Ken first mentioned this book to me, I admit I was a bit indignant. Being just in the middle of reading all six of Jane Austen's novels, and thoroughly enjoying the experience, I thought, "I am getting so much out of these books, do I really need to read what some other random person got out of them?"

To my surprise, my cousin Shan mailed me this book a couple days after I finished Northanger Abbey, the last of her novels that I read. I was just starting to feel a bit of Jane Austen withdrawal, and now having the book in hand, I jumped at the chance to read it. (Thank you, Shan!)

I was immediately impressed upon realizing that the author is a man! Throughout all my readings, I totally pigeon-holed Jane Austen as the chick lit of the classics, what with her topics of love and friendship and relationships in general, her study of human nature, personal growth, and character. Approaching the book from a man's point of view would certainly give me a fresh perspective on the novels.

Secondly, the author turned out to be not a completely random person, but a former professor of English with a PhD in literature. So, he could offer legitimate literary analyses of the books, which I had not attempted myself.

Overall, this book is a quick and pleasant read. It is an excellent companion to the novels. I would suggest, however, that you should first read all six novels yourself before reading this book. Even though the author tries not to give away the endings, he does reveal quite a bit about characters and plot development. Also, because he frequently makes passing mention of characters from all the books no matter what book he is focused on at the time, I think readers would be better able to appreciate the author's discussion if they, too, were familiar with all the characters.

I especially liked that the author provided bits and pieces about Jane Austen herself. He even included several excerpts from her letters, and filled in the major details of her life. In fact, before reading this book, I was thinking of reading a Jane Austen biography, but now I think my curiosity on that front might already be satisfied!

He even made a small mention of some of the screen adaptations, which I also particularly liked because seeing all of them (and I mean all of them!) is also part of my own personal Jane Austen Project.

The only drawback, I think, is that the author seems to stretch a bit when he tried to relate the lessons of Jane Austen to his own life. The memoir portions are kind of quaint, and I can't fault him for trying, since his learning applicable life lessons from Jane Austen was basically the whole premise of the book. Also, since he focuses on the lessons he learned, I feel like he left out quite a bit about lessons that other people might be able to learn from Jane Austen.

All said, I think any Jane Austen fan would find this book enjoyable. If nothing else, it serves to praise Jane Austen and her works.

Pride and Prejudice (1940)

★★★★

This movie was light-hearted and fun, and I was surprised by how much I liked it!

Of all the Jane Austen screen adaptations, this one deviated the most from the novel - in dialogue, scenes, and character introductions and omissions. At times it didn't even try to condense the story, but rather, it created new scenes entirely. Interestingly, though, it seems to me now that deviations from the original source are most unforgivable when the adaptation for the most part tries to adhere to the book, but then veers away drastically for brief moments. On the other hand, it appears that I don't really seem to mind when a movie as a whole is interpreted differently, as long as it stays true to the spirit of the original story and characters - and then, in that case, any time the movie does briefly adhere closely to the book, I am pleasantly surprised.

The movie is well-acted and well-cast. At first the women's costumes (which were more in the style of antebellum American South than British Regency) were distracting, but once I got past that, it was a pleasure to watch.

Emma (1972 TV Mini-Series)

★★★½

This mini-series, made in 1972, had the same production quality as other BBC mini-series made in the 1980s. I'm glad I decided to go back and watch all screen adaptations, regardless of their year of release. (Originally I planned only to watch screen adaptations made no earlier than 1980.)

While Mrs. Weston seemed a bit young for her role, several other characters were very well-cast. Specifically, I really enjoyed Mr. Woodhouse, Mr. Knightley, Harriet Smith, Mrs. Elton, and Frank Churchill. I rather think Frank Churchill's cheery and relaxed demeanor stole every scene he was in, especially since the production as a whole was kind of serious and slow. In both the mini-series and the book, everyone good-naturedly humored Mr. Woodhouse's fretting, but in the mini-series, unfortunately, people seemed to lose patience with him, and many scenes ended by having someone walk out on Mr. Woodhouse while he was in mid-sentence! Poor Mr. Woodhouse.

This production might have gotten four stars, but I subtracted half a star specifically because it altered the Box Hill picnic scene too much. I can live with some of the liberties a screen adaptation is bound to take - condensing several scenes into one, moving a conversation from one scene to another, or introducing some character in a more abbreviated way - but by leaving Mr. Elton and Jane Fairfax out of the picnic altogether, the scene lost quite a bit of its significance. In the book, the fact that Frank and Emma's flirtations took place in Jane's presence gave the entire scene more meaning, and Jane finally broke her reservedness by responding - with her longest speech in the book - to observations of Mr. and Mrs. Elton's quick marriage. Those parts of the picnic scene are so central to the Jane and Frank storyline that I just can't forgive this production for leaving it out - especially since, as a mini-series, they had plenty of time to be able to work it in. It seemed almost as if they dawdled so much in the first several episodes that they then had to squeeze too much into the last couple.

Northanger Abbey (1987 TV Movie)

★★½

This movie was, disappointingly, the least well-done screen adaptation of a Jane Austen novel I've seen yet.

I do think most of the characters were well-cast, though both John Thorpe and General Tilney (who perhaps overacted) were made out to be worse than they were in the book. Catherine was okay, but appeared to be as young and naive at the end of the movie as in the beginning.

Liberties of all kinds were taken. The way in which characters were introduced was quite different from the book, and events were a bit jumbled. Catherine and Isabella's friendship seems to have appeared out of nowhere. Sometimes, even as dialogue was taken from the book, the scenes were entirely changed; in significant deviations from the book, characters go to public baths, they row on a lake, and the Tilneys have visitors at Northanger Abbey. Strangely, a mysterious French woman was inexplicably added to the cast, and the Tilney men were all made to take snuff. And what was with the black servant/slave boy!? Finally, as if the filmmakers were running out of time, Catherine's departure from Northanger Abbey was practically glossed over.

The fantasy sequences adequately showed Catherine's preoccupation with Gothic romance novels, but the music was a bit overdone. Amusingly, the music in the last scene - which deviated from the book significantly - was so clearly from the 1980s.

Northanger Abbey (2007 TV Movie)

★★★★

I enjoyed this movie quite a bit! Almost all characters were perfectly cast, save John Thorpe, who looked even more lecherous than expected. The fantasy sequences did a good job portraying Catherine's fondness for Gothic romance novels, and the production as a whole was well-done. Even the music was a good fit.

Unfortunately, besides the usual shortcuts taken to introduce characters or condense the story, and a few omitted scenes, the movie also took some liberties. In the book, Henry Tilney is so perfectly the gentleman that he takes pains to ease Catherine's mind about a folly over which she is mortified, and when she leaves Northanger Abbey, it is clear that no fault lies with her. In the movie, however, Henry's reaction is more severe, to the point that we aren't sure if maybe Catherine's behavior might have had something to do with her departure. The book's ending also allows for some reconciliation between Henry and General Tilney, which the movie does not incorporate.

Despite these discrepancies, and even with the movie's splash of 21st century dramatization, I was pretty well-satisfied with this screen adaptation.

Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen

★★★★

My only disappointment in finishing this book is that it marks the end of my project to read all six of Jane Austen's completed novels. I have no more Jane Austen books to look forward to!

This one reads more like a young adult novel, and in some ways it is a coming-of-age story. Catherine Morland is young and naive, but we see her grow and mature as she navigates new friendships and learns from her mistakes. While Catherine's relationship with Isabella is deftly crafted, perhaps her friendship with Eleanor Tilney could have been elaborated upon a bit more. Henry fits the bill perfectly as the object of desire, and his speech on the over-use of the word "nice" is exactly as I have always thought myself!

Without having read any of the Gothic romance novels of which this book is a satire, it's easy to imagine what those books must be like. For the first time in a Jane Austen novel, however, I found myself losing interest as the author expounded upon a topic - in this case, some aspect of Gothic romance novels. But since even those accounts lasted only a mere paragraph or so, they weren't so much a detraction.

As usual, the story is tied up rather nicely, and quickly, in the last few pages. And I don't care what anyone says - I love Jane Austen's "happily ever after" endings!

Helen's - Concord, MA

★★★


Cash-only establishment. Casual diner with usual breakfast fare. My glass of orange juice was rather small, and the melons (honeydew and cantaloupe) in the side of fruit (which also included grapes) were not yet ripe. Overall, decent food, but nothing remarkable.

Mansfield Park (1999)

★★★

I liked the casting for this movie so much that it's a real shame that the story deviated so much from the novel. Every character was well-acted and physically well-cast, even if the characters themselves were not true to the book. The actor who played Edmund also played Mr. Knightley in Emma, but I much preferred him in this role.

Fanny was spirited and lively, an imaginative writer of fanciful stories - a far cry from the timid and fearful creature in the book. Eldest brother Tom Bertram was made to be even more disgraceful than in the book (though he was given the moral high ground in the movie), but the real liberties were taken with Lady Bertram - made to be an opium addict! - and Sir Thomas, who, in the movie, had a morally reprehensible role in the slave trade.

Great liberties were taken with the story as well, though I have to admit that the movie managed to faithfully incorporate a lot of dialogue - even if, rather frequently, words were attributed to different characters. Very surprisingly, beloved brother William was entirely left out! His role was more or less replaced by sister Susan. Of course, without him, other elements of the story had to change as well. Many scenes were based on scenes in the book, but were in some way twisted around. One major deviation from the book involving Fanny and Henry Crawford had Fanny acting entirely out of character - basically negating the very principles by which her character was defined in the book. Another very flagrant alteration was in regards to Henry Crawford and Maria's relationship towards the end - the movie sensationalized their behavior, as if assuming the audience would not be entertained enough by early 19th century sensibilities.

All told, the movie was well-made and well-paced, but not a very accurate representation of the book. I should, however, cut it some slack because the credits themselves say the movie is based not only on Mansfield Park but also on Jane Austen's "letters and early journals". It's as if they tried to fit Jane Austen into Fanny's role, which, I dare say, makes me want to find out more about Jane Austen herself.

Mansfield Park (1983 TV Mini-Series)

★★★★

Having now seen so many other BBC adaptations of Jane Austen novels made into TV mini-series, I've become rather used to the play-like production quality.

The casting - which I now consider perhaps the most important part of a screen adaptation of a book - was a mixed bag. I thought Fanny was very well portrayed, but I never did get used to swarthy Edmund. Henry Crawford was too stiff and had too much of an air of arrogance; he was not at all as easy going as I expected. A fine job was done with Aunt Norris and poor Mr. Rushworth, but Mr. Yates bordered on ridiculous, and Lady Bertram was downright so.

The first episode of the mini-series depicted the childhood years well, and I liked the way the series used Fanny's letters to William to move the story along.

After doing such a great job with the rest of the book in the first five episodes, the sixth and final episode was a little disappointing. The conclusion seemed to come about suddenly and without much basis, and we didn't see Sir Thomas's reflections on parenting, nor his ultimate satisfaction in Fanny in light of his disappointments elsewhere.

Mansfield Park (2007 TV Movie)

★★★

The more screen adaptations I watch, the more I realize how much of an image for each character I already have in my mind for having read the book first. In this case, I thought Miss Crawford and Edmund (the same actor who played Mr. Elton in a version of Emma) were well-portrayed, but the rest of the cast fell short of my expectations. Fanny's dark eyebrows were distracting, and she was much more gay and lively than the timid and frail creature presented in the book. Mrs. Norris was not at all the selfish, bustling busybody and Fanny's cruel oppressor that she was in the book, and she was actually rather reserved. Lady Bertram was improved upon nicely, but several characters were entirely omitted.

The movie managed to stay very true to some scenes in the book while taking very great liberties with others. Fanny hardly seemed to be the second-class family member that was so central to her character in the book, and maybe because of that, the movie did not include her visit to her family (as it wasn't necessary for this character's development). The movie also did not include any charming childhood scenes, which set the tone in the book for Fanny and Edmund's relationship. What was included was well-done, and the movie was well-paced.

As for the final scene - I have to admit, I'm not sure what the point was of having Edmund and Fanny show off a new style of dance, nice as it was to watch.

Mansfield Park by Jane Austen

★★★★½

I very much enjoyed Mansfield Park, even though it didn't have the wit of Pride and Prejudice nor the humor of Emma. It has a decidedly more serious tone, and it is not so much a discourse on love and marriage (as other Jane Austen books are), as it is on morals, principles, and even parenting.

Characters are complex and well-developed. Jane Austen believably depicts shades of character, and though it was sometimes inconvenient to not know exactly how I should feel about one person or another, it was certainly a realistic portrayal of relationships - because how often, in real life, do we ever unchangingly regard other individuals in one single way, regardless of circumstances?

My wished-for ending fluctuated as the story progressed, and at more than one point I wondered how Jane Austen would bring about the satisfactory ending that I was sure she would provide. Not surprisingly, once I finished the book, I was not disappointed!

The King's Speech (2010)

★★★★

An inspiring movie that reminds us that, with just the right kind of encouragement and support, we all have within us the power and courage to face - and overcome - whatever challenges life throws at us.

Persuasion (2007 TV Movie)

★★★

With less than two hours' running time, a bit of condensing is not unexpected. This movie goes further, though, and takes quite a lot of liberties going beyond simply omitting scenes or combining multiple scenes into one - both of which do occur in this movie. A lot of additional dialogue not in the book was created to fill in some backstory (I have to admit, at least a few scenes were well-done and added to the story's flow), and a lot of memorable dialogue in the book was unfortunately left out. Surprisingly, a particular conversation towards the end of the book that serves a very significant purpose is relocated to much earlier in the movie, and one of the speakers is substituted with another character. Moreover, the movie went so far as to create its own drama beyond that of the book. Finally, a lot of understanding that might have been conveyed through acting was instead conveniently and straightforwardly explained via an internal monologue as Anne writes in a diary.

Except for Mary and Sir Walter - both of whom I thought overacted - the rest of the characters were well-cast. Lyme, however, was not so picturesque. The overall story, though somewhat jumbled, did follow the basic arc of the book. But I just couldn't get past all the deviations from the book. And I wasn't too fond of the shaky camera trick, either.

Persuasion (1995 TV Movie)

★★★★ Hm. There were a few minor omissions for which I really can't fault the movie, but increasingly more liberties were taken as the movie progressed. Overall, it is faithful to the book, and it includes the most memorable dialogue from the book. Lady Russell was well-portrayed, and Admiral and Mrs. Croft were perfectly cast. Anne took quite a bit of getting used to, mainly because she was made to look so homely at the beginning. I was impressed, though, with how she became more attractive as time went on, just as she had done in the book. Other than those characters, everyone else had to grow on me - and some never did. I couldn't figure out what I was supposed to make of Mrs. Clay in the movie, and both her and Mr. Elliot's parts didn't get resolved. Elizabeth came across as over-the-top unlikeable. And what was with that circus procession at the end?!