Redeeming Love - The Book of Hosea... Michael Hosea

Redeeming Love

Author: Francine Rivers

He had fallen head over heels for a devil with blue eyes and waist-length blonde hair and a body that would tempt a man into sin and death. –Narrator

He cupped her face so she couldn't look away from him and saw her heartbreaking struggle against her emotions. Emotion had always been her enemy. She couldn’t allow herself to feel if she were going to survive. He understood that, but he had to make her see that it wasn’t an enemy anymore. –Narrator

Love the Lord your God, and love one another. Love one another as he loves. Love with strength and purpose and passion and no matter what comes against you. Don’t weaken. Stand against the darkness, and love. That’s the way back into Eden. That’s the way back to life. –Narrator

I’m a Christian, but I’ve never been particularly comfortable with talking about God and my beliefs outside of my church family or my biological one. I’ve read some religious novels, though it’s never been my go-to genre. And I didn’t really expect to enjoy this book, which is based on the biblical story of Hosea. Amazon’s description:

California’s gold country, 1850. A time when men sold their souls for a bag of gold and women sold their bodies for a place to sleep.

Angel expects nothing from men but betrayal. Sold into prostitution as a child, she survives by keeping her hatred alive. And what she hates most are the men who use her, leaving her empty and dead inside. 

Then she meets Michael Hosea, a man who seeks his Father’s heart in everything. Michael obeys God’s call to marry Angel and to love her unconditionally. Slowly, day by day, he defies Angel’s every bitter expectation, until despite her resistance, her frozen heart begins to thaw.

I didn’t expect to like it, but I was pleasantly surprised. The author did a pretty good job of making the plot and the characters realistic, though the story was a bit forced at times. Each of the “good” characters hold biblical names: Sarah, Michael, Paul, Miriam, Elizabeth, John, etc., while the “bad” characters hold non-biblical names like Duke, Duchess, Alex, Magowan and Rab. It is the little details like these that made me role my eyes just a bit at the heavy-handedness.

There were times, too, when the author’s intent to follow the story of Hosea caused her to make poor transitions. For several long chapters, I would find a character staunch in her belief that there is no God and in her stance that she cannot love. Two pages later, she’s in love and joining a church. One character spends most of the story hating another with a fiery passion; in one 5-minute conversation, all of his anger is gone, with not even a hint of doubt. While these sorts of drastic transitions are possible in real life, I don’t feel like they’re as prevalent as they appear in this book. Each of the main characters seems to have a “Come to God” moment, and it just feels forced to me.

Those things aside, I did find myself rooting for the protagonist – hoping that she would be able to shed her past and all of the hard feelings that it caused, and open her heart to her husband and his God. But mostly I found myself hoping that she would find herself. She struggles with this throughout the novel: with coming to terms with her past and realizing it wasn’t her fault; with understanding that she is worthy of love; with trusting that the people she let in wouldn’t take advantage of her; with finding her purpose in life.

The more I read, the more I’d find myself caring about the characters and wanting them to succeed. I became emotional at times and was happy with the way it ended. The book didn’t change my life, but it was nice to get involved in a different life and time for a short while. And while the religiosity of it all sometimes weakened the plot, I didn’t feel preached at, which is one thing I always fear when considering reading a Christian novel.

My takeaway: The Lord’s love extends to all people, in all walks of life; and He has a plan for you, even if you don’t recognize Him as your Father. And if your name can’t be found in the Bible, you’re clearly not to be trusted.

This is Spinal Tap - This is Not Real

This is Spinal Tap

Director: Rob Reiner

Heavy metal’s deep. You get stuff out of it. –a Fan

There’s something about this… this… they’re so black. It’s like how much more black could it be? And the answer is none… none more black. –Nigel Tufnel

David and Nigel, they're like poets, like Shelley and Byron. They're two distinct types of visionaries, it's like fire and ice, basically. I feel my role in the band is to be somewhere in the middle of that, kind of like lukewarm water. –Derek Smalls

I think the problem may have been that there was a Stonehenge monument on the stage that was in danger of being crushed by a dwarf. Alright? That tended to understate the hugeness of the object. –David St. Hubbins

Let me explain my process when I watch one of these 30@30 movies. I put in the DVD, open up a fresh Word document and immediately pull up the IMDb page (though I often don’t look at the page until I’m well into the movie). Then I watch. And as I watch, I frequently rewind sections to nail down a quote I like. (Yes I know I could probably look up all of the more interesting quotes in IMDb or in Wikiquotes, but I try not to.) And as the movie progresses, I make notes on my Word doc… thoughts, questions or observations that pop into my head for help in constructing the post. Usually about a quarter of the way through, I remember to read the Netflix description.

Here are the things I wrote before I read the description:

  - Wait, this is a documentary? I thought this was fiction…

  - These are the group’s fans? Something tells me I won’t like their music if it
     produces fans like these…

  -  I thought that was Rob Reiner…

  - That drummer looks a lot like Ed Begley, Jr.

And that’s when I stopped to read the Netflix description:

Rob Reiner's cult satire about a fictional heavy metal group named Spinal Tap spoofs nearly every facet of rock 'n' roll -- from vacuous modern songwriting and half-baked album promos to pyrotechnic concerts. Michael McKean, Christopher Guest and Harry Shearer portray the washed-up, aging British rockers whose tresses and egos outstrip their talent, with Reiner appearing as the filmmaker who's chronicling the band's calamitous comeback tour.

Oh…

This is kind of a depressing movie for all its comedic affects, isn’t it? Rob Reiner’s “rockumentary” follows the band as it stages its comeback tour in America, and its downward spiral. As in many bands, both real and fictional (The Beatles and the Wonders come to mind), the downfall can be blamed on a woman. Or it could be said that the woman merely pointed out the differences that would have made the band split eventually anyway. I suppose that depends on the viewpoint… and the band… and the woman…

What it comes down to, though, is that this movie is about a friendship between two rockers, who’ve known each other since the age of 7. Nigel and David are portrayed as having a great personal and professional relationship until David’s girlfriend Jeanine arrives on scene to steal David’s attention and loyalty. Suddenly he begins supporting her inane ideas (zodiac-themed makeup?) and siding with her in arguments she has with Nigel.

It’s a tough spot to be in, really, when your best mate and your best girl don’t along. Instead of trying to even out the playing field by taking sides based on the legitimacy of the idea or the strength of the argument, David simply chooses the person sexing him up. This, of course, leads to the departure, at least momentarily, of Nigel. And it only takes time apart for David to see the error of his ways. As soon as Nigel returns, especially since he brings with him the news of the band’s album success in Japan, the boys are back to being friends and Jeanine is returned to her rightful place as observer instead of manager.

To be honest, I didn’t expect such a storybook “and they lived happily ever after” ending. That’s not to say I didn’t want the friends to reunite, the band to succeed or the girlfriend to be shut the f up. I wanted all those things. I just didn’t expect to get them. When the last scene before the credits shows them onstage playing to a large crowd in Japan with Ian Faith standing over a submissive Jeanine, it is a tad bit surreal.

As for the music… well, I was wrong. I do like some of the music the band plays in the movie. It’s catchy, even if the lyrics do tend toward the absurd. Then again, my favorite song is “Baby Got Back” so really, I mean who am I to judge?

My takeaway: When stuck between a friend and a significant other, it’s best to take all arguments into consideration before choosing sides, if a side absolutely has to be chosen in the first place. And 11 is one louder than 10.

To Kill a Mockingbird - Father Knows Best

To Kill a Mockingbird

Author: Harper Lee

I’d rather you shoot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you’ll go after birds. Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit ‘em, but remember it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird. –Atticus Finch

…The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s conscience.
–Atticus Finch

Neighbors bring food with death and flowers with sickness and little things in between. […Our neighbor] gave us two soap dolls, a broken watch and chain, a pair of good-luck pennies, and our lives. But neighbors give in return. We never put back into the tree what we took out of it: we had given him nothing, and it made me sad. –Scout Finch (narrator)

It’s taken me a while to figure out what I want to write about To Kill a Mockingbird. It was one of the books I had not looked forward to reading. It made my list of 30 books because it took the top spot in nearly all of the internet lists I found of “must-read” books. I thought I knew what this book would be about – life in the south in the mid-1930s as seen through the eyes of Scout who, with her brother Jem, interacts with recluse neighbor Boo Radley – but, as usual, I was wrong. Sure, Jem, Scout and Boo are all integral characters in this story. But there is so much more. The book, according to Amazon.com:

Set in the small Southern town of Maycomb, Alabama, during the Depression, To Kill a Mockingbird follows three years in the life of 8-year-old Scout Finch, her brother, Jem, and their father, Atticus--three years punctuated by the arrest and eventual trial of a young black man accused of raping a white woman. Though her story explores big themes, Harper Lee chooses to tell it through the eyes of a child.

Let's talk about Atticus. He is a lawyer and father to Jem and Scout. His age and unique parenting style are mentioned many times in the book. We know Atticus is older than the other children’s parents, and he doesn’t parent as other fathers do. Atticus teaches his children to read and speaks to them as adults; he allows Scout to be a tomboy and trusts his children to look out for one another. And most importantly, Atticus teaches his children strength of character and self-respect.

The lesson Atticus teaches his children about choosing your battles – letting people insult you and your family to your face and doing nothing in return – is a lesson that is hard to take, especially for Scout who is used to using her fists as response to insult. But because Scout was raised to respect her father, she not only listens to him, choosing to suffer silently when children tag her father as a “nigger-lover,” but she comes to Atticus’s aid when he is faced with the possibility of fighting with fists instead of words.

Scout makes several observations that are beyond her years – and sometimes she doesn’t even realize she’s making them. And at least twice she mentions in her narration that something that happens in her childhood isn’t fully understood until later in her life. And that leads me to more questions: Does she follow in her father’s footsteps as a lawyer or a parent? Does she marry Dill? Does she continue to think of Boo Radley, even though she mentions at the end of the book that she never sees him after that night? Does she finally turn into the woman that her Aunt Alexandra has been tirelessly trying to make her?

I’d like to speculate that she continues her insufferable education where the teachers finally realize her ability to read early is something to be praised and not silenced. She goes on to become a lawyer, fighting for the Tom Robinsons of the world – both black and white, rich and poor – using the knowledge her father gave her: that all men deserve a chance in front of a judge to defend himself. She marries and has children with Dill and teaches them to read and to embrace their imagination and their individuality. She teaches them the hard lessons and never forces them to conform to the societal rules that break their spirit, but always encourages them to follow the laws – both those written in the books and those written in the thread of their community: neighbors should treat each other as neighbors, family should support one another, humanity should be respected, lies should be forbidden. And killing a mockingbird is a sin.

Scout’s future in my mind is shaped somewhat by her childhood fixation on Boo Radley and the events of the trial, and somewhat on being the tomboy brother of Jem and friend of Dill. But it is shaped mostly on Atticus – on what he says, what he does and who he is.

I’m sure there have been scholarly papers written on virtually every aspect of this book, including the unwritten future of Harper Lee’s most famous narrator, but I’m choosing not to search for those. My observations are my own, as fantastical as they are. And in my mind, Scout will always grow up to become the person her father always was.

And though I dreaded reading this book, I’m glad I did. I liked the beginning and the way that Lee created and rounded out her characters. I liked the middle where Atticus defended an innocent black man to a prejudiced jury and shed light on the white man’s crimes against his family. And I liked the end, with its sense of danger, action and resolution. I suppose I can concede that this book is one for the masses: a lesson in racial prejudice, class separation, gender roles and sense of community, among others. And really, quite a good read.

My takeaway: The lessons we learn in our impressionable youth are sometimes as simple as “do unto others as you’d have done unto you” and as heavy as how to defend your sister in a fight to the death or how to stomach insults to your family; but they are always internalized for our path to adulthood. And sometimes (but not always) a well-loved “classic” really does live up to the hype.

Shooter - Save the Plot and Pass the Ammunition

Shooter

Director: Antoine Fuqua

Some people don’t know what to do when their belief system collapses. Bob Lee is one of those. –Col Isaac Johnson

Maybe I should wait for the report to come out, read it and then remember. –Nick Memphis

You know, I missed a meeting today where I was going to get fired for unprofessional conduct because I was kidnapped by people that don’t exist. –Nick Memphis

I did take an oath to defend this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic; I just didn't figure I’d end up quite this involved. But at the end of the day, when all the dust settles, you can’t hide from the truth… –Bob Lee Swagger

Netflix says:

An expert marksman (Mark Wahlberg) is coaxed out of seclusion by colleagues who need his help in preventing a plot to kill the president. But he realizes he’s been set up when he’s framed for the assassination attempt. Can he elude the law long enough to bring the real culprits to justice? Danny Glover and Michael Peña (World Trade Center) co-star in this political thriller based on a novel by Stephen Hunter.

Netflix calls this a political thriller. And it is. But, let’s face it: it’s a shoot ‘em up movie, through and through. I’m not saying that as a negative, I’m simply clarifying the genre. Because there are different expectations for shooting movies, particularly today with all of the cinematic tools and digital techniques available to filmmakers.

Not only did I expect some government intrigue, but I also wanted to believe the shots, appreciate the setups and be blown away by the explosions. I needed to be pulled in.

The movie does a good job of setting up sympathy for the main character – he is abandoned by his leaders and is forced to watch his best friend gunned down. Though its avoidance in showing the battle’s outcome with the “Thirty-six months later” tag struck me as far too clean.

As the movie progresses, I regret having read the Netflix description. Going into it knowing that Mark Wahlberg’s Bob Lee Swagger is going to be set up for an assassination that he doesn’t commit, I’m constantly questioning, speculating, watching everything through a veil of suspicion. And, I feel like I didn’t have the same experience I could have, had I gone in blindly.

That said, I definitely get the great explosions and shoot-to-kill scenes I want, and letting the camera focus a few beats on a shirtless Mark Wahlberg never hurts. There are some great scenes where Swagger is walking back from a shoot-out and he appears almost as in silhouette against the fire blossoming up behind him. Beautiful.

And Michael Peña’s obnoxiously-named Nick Memphis (seriously, Nick Memphis?) was a great Robin to Bob Lee Swagger’s Batman. I’m not sure what that makes Rhona Mitra’s character… eye candy, I suppose. Sure she was down with the intel and worked as Memphis’s contact on the inside after he’d gone rogue, but anyone could have played that part (sorry, Rhona); but she did bring the pretty.

I realized I've barely touched on the plot and I’ve neglected to mention a good chunk of the characters. But this isn’t a review, so I’m going to continue to ignore those. What I do want to say is that “political thriller” label aside, the shooting scenes near the end of the movie (in Virginia, in Montana, on the mountaintop and at the cabin) make the movie for me. Yeah yeah, there’s plot, government is evil… whatever. Bring on the kill!!

My takeaway: Good has a way of winning out, even if the win is unconventional in thought (and involves lots of blood and bullets). And it is hard to shoot a running target from the landing foot of a helicopter in flight, especially if you’re the bad guy.

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time - No Touching!

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time

Author: Mark Haddon

Prime numbers are what is left when you have taken all the patterns away. I think prime numbers are like life. They are very logical but you could never work out the rules, even if you spent all your time thinking about them. –Narrator

...the only thing I could think was how much it hurt because there was no room for anything else in my head, but I couldn't go to sleep and I just had to sit there and there was nothing to do except to wait and to hurt. –Narrator

Lots of things are mysteries. But that doesn't mean there isn't an answer to them. It's just that scientists haven't found the answer yet. –Narrator

I see everything. –Narrator

Amazon.com describes this book as such:

Christopher John Francis Boone knows all the countries of the world and their capitals and every prime number up to 7,057. He relates well to animals but has no understanding of human emotions. He cannot stand to be touched. And he detests the color yellow.

This improbable story of Christopher's quest to investigate the suspicious death of a neighborhood dog makes for one of the most captivating, unusual, and widely heralded novels in recent years.

This short 117-page book is written from the point of view of an autistic child on a mission to find out who killed his neighbor’s dog. Initially blamed for the crime, Christopher sets out to unravel the mystery not only to clear his name but also because he likes to know how and why things happen.

Christopher’s world is complicated in its simplicity. He doesn’t like things that are brown or yellow; he bases the day’s mood on the cars he sees on the way to school; and he does not like to be touched. He understands animals more than people and has a hard time deciphering facial expressions.

When you read a book that is told from a first-person view, it only works if the reader trusts the narrator. If the reader’s relationship with the narrator isn’t based on trust, the reader doesn’t connect with the narrator and instead questions everything he says. As a reader, you are being blindly led down a path by your narrator, trusting that he will show you what you need to see, when you need to see it. You’re trusting that he will not lie to you or let you get hurt unless he is also hurt.

While we tend to instinctively trust children, it is sometimes less automatic to trust those people deemed developmentally challenged. Christopher starts the book by telling us about his discovery of the dead dog. It is in the second chapter (chapter 3 – Christopher “decided to give [his] chapters prime numbers 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, and so on because [he] like[s] prime numbers.”), he formerly introduces himself to his readers.

He also introduces the reader to his teacher, Siobhan, who is the one to suggest he write a book in the first place. As the simple mystery of the dog’s murder leads Christopher to uncover a second mystery in which his home life takes an unexpected turn, Siobhan and his school seem the one constant. Even when he runs away from home in search of the mystery’s end, it is the thought of going to school to take his exams that sits at the front of his mind.

I will never be autistic. The things I observe and react to are different than the things Christopher does. He takes his reader on a journey to London, braving a busy street and a crowded train station, trying desperately to stay focused despite his hyper-sensitivity to all things audible and visible. It was hard for me, as the reader, to watch him suffer through his several near-breakdowns; but it was oddly inspiring to see him think it out, groan it out and wait it out, eventually reaching his destination, a seemingly impossible feat.

By the end of the book, all I wanted to do was hug him – or rather, hold out my right hand and spread my fingers out in a fan, the sign of love used by Christopher and his family – for everything he’d gone through and for the bravery in which he endured it all. I wasn't ready for the book to end when it did. But once he’d solved both his original mystery and the new one that arose along the way, Christopher had no more reason to write.

I really wanted to include the last sentence of the book as a quote in this post but I couldn't bring myself to do it. This is a book that deserves to be read and each reader deserves to reach the last sentence and enjoy each word’s import on his own.

My takeaway: sometimes it’s the child who teaches the parent and the developmentally challenged who teaches the “normal.” And 3 red cars in a row make it a Quite Good Day while 4 yellow cars in a row make it a Black Day.

Blazing Saddles - It's Hedley!

Blazing Saddles

Director: Mel Brooks

Ooh baby, you are so talented. And they are so dumb! –Bart, to himself

Gol darnit, Mr. Lamar. You use your tongue is prettier than a $20 whore. –Taggart

Throw out your hands / Stick out your tush / Hands on your hips / Give them a push / You’ll be surprised, you’re doing the French Mistake / Voila! –Buddy’s Singers

Men, you are about to embark on a great crusade to tamp out runaway decency in the west. Now you men will only be risking your lives, whilst I will be risking an almost certain Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor. –Hedley Lamarr

To quote Netflix:

Politically incorrect and relentlessly funny, Mel Brooks’s take on Hollywood Westerns follows the tortured trail of freed slave Bart, who’s elected sheriff of the racist town of Rock Ridge. He must foil a land-grabbing governor (Brooks) with help from a washed-up, pot-smoking gunslinger (Gene Wilder).

I don’t consider myself to be overly politically correct; it takes a lot to offend me where political correctness is concerned. But I was slightly offended by the continued incorrectness of this movie. Slightly. We’ve been so conditioned to cringe at the word nigger that in several scenes, I spent more time cringing than not. Once I was able to get over that, I could appreciate the bathroom jokes a little easier.

Honestly, I was surprised at my feeling offended. Let me clarify: I was not surprised by the content or the language; I was surprised by my reaction to it. I can let a lot of things roll off my back, particularly when it comes to film, television and literature; there are times when certain words find a comfortable home in a piece where they would jar me in life normally. Words considered derogatory, offensive, stereotypical or bigoted need to be used sometimes, I get that. I’m currently reading To Kill a Mockingbird and listening to Gone with the Wind as part of this project and both use the word nigger several times; and I don’t find myself cringing. I feel like that word is a natural part of the time periods, of the locations, whereas in Blazing Saddles, the time-period doesn’t seem natural and therefore the word seems unnatural as well.

But the more glaring difference between the books and the movie is the genre. While the books present a more serious, dramatic tone, the movie is clearly a comedy. And the more I think of it, the more confident I am that this is what is stirring the uncomfortable feelings within me. A comedy of this nature featuring words of that nature just doesn’t sit well with me, no matter how surprised that realization makes me. My reaction receptors seem confused – should they be focusing on receiving comedy or gravity? Should I feel light or tense? Throwing a word which clearly has weight in my mind into a movie that doesn’t is the source of my discomfort. I simply don’t find the word nigger funny, especially when it’s used as a common reference in everyday conversation; so, not knowing which reaction to elicit, I am left feeling uncomfortable and confused without really understanding why.

Mystery unraveled, let me tell you what I did enjoy. I thought the Merry Melodies style candy-gram was humorous in a Wile E. Coyote kind of way; I enjoyed some of the banter between characters and got a kick out of Mr. Lamarr's constant correction (even when unnecessary) of his first name; and I thought the singing introduction of the town, ending with the church congregation referring to Rock Ridge as “turning into shit” was amusing. And the ending was pretty entertaining! [Spoiler alert: if you don’t know the ending and plan on watching the movie, I’d recommend skipping the next paragraph, where I’ll detail why I liked the ending.]

While the movie made a few remarks that showed self-awareness, I didn’t particularly expect the Rock Ridge fight scene to first interrupt a closed set where an all-male chorus was performing a snappy little number called “The French Mistake” under the direction of Dom DeLuise (which, by the way, is one of my favorite scenes), and explode into then the cafeteria and before finally landing on the streets of Hollywood. The movie’s existential view of itself reached its pinnacle when members of the cast watched the movie’s ending in the theater as it was being filmed.

Did I chuckle at this movie? I did. And I understand why Mel Brooks is heralded for his humor. But, ultimately, it just wasn’t my kind of movie. I felt that the type of comedy verged on that of Airplane!, which admittedly came six years after this one, but it didn’t quite get there. While I say I chuckled at some jokes in Blazing Saddles, I full out laugh every time at parts of Airplane! I’m glad there are folks out there who feel just the opposite – what kind of place would this be if everyone’s comedic tastes matched mine?

My takeaway: Craftiness beats underhandedness, so long as they are in opposition. And a wed wose is womantic.

Royal Wedding - It's Almost Christmas

Royal Wedding

Director: Stanley Donen

Marriages are very healthy, sir. You see, married men live much longer than bachelors.  –Chester

If that's true, they're only trying to outlive their wives so they can be bachelors again. –Tom Bowen

He didn't have to chase very hard after Ellen. She stood still and waited. –Tom Bowen

Very quiet she is, but deep. At least I hope she is deep or else she’s wasting a lot of her time being quiet. –James Ashmond

From Netflix:

Brother-sister dance duo Tom and Ellen Bowen (Fred Astaire and Jane Powell) get the chance of a lifetime when they're booked for a London performance on the eve of Elizabeth II's nuptials. In the course of their journey, Ellen meets her match in Lord Brindale, and Tom finds romance with a British hoofer. Will love break up the act? Peter Lawford and Sarah Churchill also star in this classic 1950s musical comedy.

My favorite Christmas movie is Irving Berlin’s White Christmas. I love it for the music, the dancing, the clothing, the sets… but mostly for the way it makes me feel. From the moment Royal Wedding's opening credits began, I knew this movie would stir up the same feelings. And while it never quite got to White Christmas level, it sure did make me smile without trying.

This movie was made 3 years before White Christmas, and it looks very similar. It has the same faded coloring, where the edges blur into one another. And I instantly love it. As the opening scene begins, I find I love Jane Powell’s opening number dress… and then I find I love the opening number! And I feel like this whole post is going to turn into a love letter to Royal Wedding.

They speak differently in the old movies… they’re classy yet real. And the comedic timing is different than in today’s movies. It’s not better, it’s not worse. It’s just different. And I can’t imagine switching the two. They are perfect in their time, and I enjoy them both. But in the old movies, even their voices sound different – perhaps it’s due to the less-sophisticated sound systems, or perhaps it’s just the way things were back then. I don’t know and I won’t ever know. And I kind of like that.

And speaking of timing (which I was, before I got side-tracked), how can you not enjoy Fred Astaire’s timing in both comedy and dance? He’s magical. Even when he’s dancing on the walls and ceiling, he does it with such finesse that it doesn’t look hokey. It surprised me to know, upon looking at his filmography (IMDb is the best movie companion you can have – it knows all the answers to your question and never steals your popcorn) that I’ve seen only one other of his movies: Holiday Inn. And I've seen that only once!

The movie’s plot was very simple: two siblings, famous for their song-and-dance performances, travel to London to perform around the time of a royal wedding taking place. Both Tom and Ellen seem to balk at the idea of marriage – Ellen is having too much fun playing the field and Tom is married to his job. That is, until they find their perfect matches and have to decide if love is a strong enough reason to change both their minds and their lives. It’s no surprise, of course, that love conquers all in a musical, but they played it out very well.

But not everything in the movie is perfect. There’s a scene when Ellen and John are walking over a bridge and Ellen eventually breaks into song. It’s supposed to be evening, and the older camera and lighting equipment and techniques make it hard for the viewer to properly see their faces. While I appreciate the reality of the moment – it IS hard to see folks’ faces at night – I also miss the enhanced “moonlight” effects of today’s cinema.

While Jane Powell’s character Ellen has several solos in the movie, the best numbers for me are the ones she and Fred Astaire’s Tom perform together. While she has a great voice, the solos just don’t do it for me without Fred’s accompaniment. But their dancing gets me every time! The dancing... and the clothes!

My only true complaint was that the ending felt rushed. It’s as if they got to the end of their last reel of film and realized they didn't have any left over to finish off the movie. So they tacked on a 2-minute wrap-up and hit the end credits.

My takeaway: never close your heart or eyes to love, for it tends to find you anyway; and you’ll waste a lot less time if you’re ready for it when it shows up. And I was born in the wrong decade.