Review, I Guess: Cameron Crowe's ALOHA

(Let's just pretend I blog way more than I actually do; I always have ideas and then proceed to not write blog posts!)

Yesterday, I saw Cameron Crowe's new film, Aloha. Yes, the one getting a ton of flak, with the awful Rotten Tomatoes rating. Luckily, reviews aren't something I really pay attention to. (As I write a review...) It's more that I don't let them dictate what I actually get out and see. My friend and I are huge Cameron Crowe fans, and we knew we'd be continuing the tradition to see Aloha.

I'm not going to pretend the film didn't have issues. It had a lot of issues. Really, every film has issues, and Cameron Crowe's are no exception. (Except maybe Almost Famous. I just really love that one.) Overall, however, I enjoyed the film. But hey, I enjoyed Elizabethtown, so I bet my opinion will be ignored!

...But come on! Elizabethtown was intense, quirky dark comedy at its best. No, dear Orlando Bloom isn't the best actor, and neither is Kirsten Dunst, but they made it interesting! COME ON! No? Moving on.

Aloha features Bradley Cooper as ex-military (he's getting really good at that), now turned contractor Brian Gilcrest for eccentric billionaire Bill Murray. (His name's Carson Welch, but I had a tough time separating Bill Murray. But in a good way.) He heads back to Hawaii to work on...something (I kind of lost some of it) for Welch, something about a satellite (more about that later), and has to reconnect with everyone he knew on the base (and apparently left on bad terms). This includes an ex-girlfriend, Tracy, played by Rachel McAdams (a goddess), who's now married to a pilot, Woody (played by the incomparable John Krasinski.) He's also introduced to his watchdog, Allison Ng, played by Emma Stone. She's a 1/4 Hawaiian, and doesn't shut up about it; she's very intense, but has a really fun side that comes out slowly but surely. She's also a FIGHTER PILOT, which is really cool. Special mention for the actors playing Rachel McAdams' kids - especially Danielle Rose Russell, playing Grace. There's a part at the end where she sees Bradley Cooper, and they have a wordless exchange, and I cried. A lot. There are special, hilarious appearances by Danny McBride and Alec Baldwin.

Now, about that satellite. I'm going to be frank here - I had NO IDEA what was happening with that for the majority of the film. There's a part where Brian is looking at some sort of schematic Carson's people gave him, and I had literally no idea what I was looking at. The whole part about this felt really rushed and thrown in at the last moment, and there were a lot of parts that were squished together. The editing was very off for the first part of the film, and had a lot of quick cuts that maybe didn't need to be there. The satellite thing was also not ever really explained that well, and I'm of the firm belief that this whole subplot did not need to be there. Maybe I got distracted by something and that's why I didn't really get it, but I just felt like it didn't work, and that's been the overwhelming opinion.

The other thing that didn't come across in the greatest way was the whole portrayal of the Hawaiian attitude towards Americans. While I'm glad that in the film, it is communicated at all that this is a feeling in Hawaii, that they are "American by force" (as the king of Hawaii, played by Dennis Bump Kanahele, expresses through the shirt he wears in every scene in which he appears), I felt it wasn't communicated well. That's an entirely different film, and probably a documentary - though I believe there is already a documentary covering this. Again, it felt rushed and a lot of it was lost in the focus on the burgeoning intimacy between Gilcrest and Allison.

A lot of the reviews have focused on the severe lack of diversity in this film. I don't feel overly comfortable addressing this in a big way. It's definitely, definitely a problem; there were Hawaiians in the film, and I did feel that the entire piece tried very hard to communicate the feel of the nation through imagery and some mention of the issues that are present even now. (I had no idea that the people felt so infringed upon, and I regret that I had no idea.) I can see the research and work that was done, but to the general population (and watching people learn how to do the hula changed my perception of the dance completely), it doesn't look like it because all the main players of the film are white. It does take place on a military base, so perhaps that was the reasoning, but I'm not sure what the intention there was.

As for Emma Stone's character - yes, I can understand why people are angry. Her character was based on someone Crowe met, who is a redhead (and presumably has a skin tone close to Emma's, but maybe not, he just mentioned that she is a redhead) who is also 1/4 Hawaiian, but no one ever believes her because she doesn't look like it. (And that's probably the reason Allison Ng never stops talking about it, because she's trying to communicate how at home she is and how she's trying to be part of the nation.) However, because diversity is such an intense issue in Hollywood, there's no way to turn this around; I feel that people are probably viewing it as "white people complaining" and it won't ever be accepted. I still enjoyed the film, but I recognise the diversity issues.

Okay, now I want to talk about the good stuff! And there is a lot of good stuff. It's the stuff Crowe does best - relationships. (Also the shots of the island are stunning.)

I have never seen wordless exchanges done so well as they were in this film. Each one of them made me laugh and cry. This has a lot to do with the brilliance of the actors, but also a lot to do with Crowe just creating the moments. John Krasinski has very little in the way of spoken lines, but he is a commanding presence and he communicates everything he needs to with his eyes and body language. He has two wordless exchanges with Bradley Cooper's character, and both are so amazing. The first, you know EXACTLY what he's thinking, and your belief is just confirmed by Brian Gilcrest telling Tracy what he said without words. It's actually perfect. In the second moment, even though it's subtitled for comic relief, it will still make you tear up. (I flat out cried because Cameron Crowe movies usually ruin my emotions.) It was absolutely beautiful and so well done, by both Bradley Cooper and John Krasinski, and I believe they could only have pulled that performance off in a Crowe film.

There's another exchange, between Bradley Cooper and Danielle Rose Russell, that I'm actually tearing up thinking about right now. (And I might even buy the film in order to have it forever.) It's near the end, and Cooper is looking through a window at Russell, and this is where this young actress shows why Cameron Crowe knows when he's found amazing young actors and actresses. You can see every thought cross her face, and when she begins to cry, you begin to cry. It was absolutely incredible, and I was absolutely floored and thankful to be seeing it.

Special mention for Rachel McAdams, because this is one of her first films in a couple of years, and she's come back swinging. McAdams is one of my favourite actresses ever; she's just so real and she never feels forced. She almost becomes unlikable in this role, but she turns it around. The most important part is, she DEVELOPS and she feels. That's Crowe's work too, but it's also hers.

In the end, Aloha is a combination of hits and misses. The relationships are a hit; the subplot is a miss and unnecessary. There are countless amazing performances, and the inclusion of the Hawaiian people is important, although it isn't all it should have been. There's a huge diversity issue, both in this film and in the film industry at large, and we all have to work toward eradicating that issue.

Review: The Iron Trial

The Iron Trial by Cassandra Clare

My rating: 4 of 5 stars



Okay, first things first: yes, there are a lot of similarities to Harry Potter. It's a book about going to a magic school, and there's a villain. OF COURSE it's similar to Harry Potter. However, JK Rowling was not the first author to write about a magic school, and she won't be the last. I believe it's important to put that aside and let the story from Holly Black & Cassandra Clare take its own course. THEN you can decide if you hate it. I urge you not to pre-judge!

To me, it was like an inverted Harry Potter. Maybe a next step - it's even darker just by the nature of the plot twists that happen. (And it's harder to get darker than Harry Potter!) It also draws on all the classic fantasy aspects - you can see the Lord of the Rings influence, I can even see a Mercedes Lackey influence in the way that it reads - but none of this means that the story steals from them and becomes a carbon copy of them. I also love the reintroduction of the mage aspect - it's been a while since I've read something involving mages that isn't based in historical fiction, though I don't read a TON of young adult fantasy. I think it was done well, however.

The characters are developed; you get a healthy curiosity about them because you're given JUST enough backstory to want to know more, but not all of it. Tamara especially fascinates me, because there is definitely something in her background but we don't get to find out that much about it. The characters also change - Callum's path is, of course, one of the most interesting, but I feel like Aaron will also get a lot more attention as the series goes on, and he doesn't stay the same flat character the whole time in this book. (I also like Callum's development because he goes from angst filled and angry to happy to other things. And YES, he does remind me of Harry, but with even better character development and a darker story.)

Parts of the novel did read a little slowly, and there was a lot of world building that sometimes took away from the plot. (A little too much exposition.) It is a complicated world they're trying to build, with a lot more history than is normal in most books, and I think this was really a set up book for the rest of the series, but both Holly Black and Cassandra Clare are pretty funny people, so there's a lot of lightness in the darkness.

I did enjoy it, and maybe my head wasn't in the right place (or I'm not one of those people who always have to say they saw plot twists coming!) but I certainly didn't see the twist. I knew something was up (no spoilers here, I've decided) but I didn't see it. It's definitely one of the ways I'd recommend this book, that plot twist. And you can always use the Harry Potter similarities as a way to recommend it, because it's like an even darker version, and as said, the next step from Harry Potter. It's similar, but it's even more intense and there's so many ways for it to go, and the backstory is just as tragic. I find it interesting, and also found that I read it in about one day overall, minus breaks I took to go to work.

And yes, it's technically 9-12, but so is Harry Potter - I'm a firm believer in the fact that YA and 9-12 fiction can be read by ANYONE. Don't get me started on that.

I've seen a lot of bad reviews for this book, and though I agree with some of those reasons - the worldbuilding is too much, exposition, slowness, etc - I do not agree with calling it bad because of the Harry Potter parallels. There was no way to avoid that, as Harry Potter exploded over the world stage, but I think, in time, Black & Clare will be able to make it their own. (Their writing voices are different!) I also see a lot of other classic influences that no one is commenting on in a negative way. I think they're doing a great job, and it's not like they don't know that people are going to be comparing the two endlessly. I think they've already made it their own with the plot twist. I will recommend it to people who enjoyed Harry Potter and a classic fantasy feel mixed with modern funny parts. (Though I definitely know that not everyone will agree there, and that's fine - just make sure you don't pre-judge this book because of the HP similarities!)



View all my reviews

Review: Georgiana: Duchess of Devonshire

Georgiana: Duchess of Devonshire by Amanda Foreman

My rating: 2 of 5 stars



This book was probably the hardest history book I have had to get through - not including some Canadian history textbooks - and I'm still unsure as to the absolutely exact reason why. I think it may have been the writing style; at the same time as it was very, VERY dry and very textbook (and you know something's dry when they're talking about sexual scandal in what feels like a monotone voice), there were also many, many typos and run-on sentences that really bothered me. I just felt there were better ways to construct sentences, and I don't know if it was meant to be a stylistic choice - as the writing at the time, such as the writing that Georgiana composed herself, wasn't in keeping with modern grammar rules - or if there were just a lot of unfinished thoughts. Foreman also seemed, to me, to be a contradictory writer. She seemed to go from judging Georgiana very harshly to lifting her up onto a pedestal. The end of the book had this happen very intensely, when Foreman talked about how we cannot apply modern heterosexual or homosexual ideas to these eighteenth century relationships - yet the main focus of your book WAS applying those ideas to those relationships. (At least that's what seemed to be happening for the majority of the book for me; that and talking about how women shouldn't have gone near politics, yet applauding Georgiana for standing out, and then judging her again for retreating after she was shamed for it repeatedly.) There seemed to be a lot of flipping back and forth, and Foreman didn't seem to make a real decision on how she viewed Georgiana.

There was one lucid observation that was interesting to me: "The propensity of women's historians to ignore high politics, and of political historians to ignore women, has resulted in a profound misunderstanding of one of the most sexually integrated periods of British history." I really loved this, because it is really true. I haven't delved as deeply into women's history as I would like - in university history courses, you tend to focus on more well known accounts, and I never did get to take a really good gender in history course - but I feel, from what I've read, that this is true. Despite women in politics being a real thing - just because they didn't sit in the House did not mean they weren't present and working harder than the men in Parliament - it's rarely discussed, and I thought that was a great point to include. I do just wish she had been as decisive about the rest of her views on the rest of Georgiana's relationships. I think there's more to Georgiana's life than I learned here - since the majority focused on her life as it related to men and really painted her as completely idiotic with money and then occasionally painted her as a heroine in politics, which was very confusing - and though I didn't entirely enjoy this, I think I'll be seeking more information elsewhere.



View all my reviews