The Perks of Being a Wallflower

This movie is about high school students. And it’s actually somewhat good. Shocking, I know. Charlie (Logan Lerman) is a wall flower. I know. You are totally floored because the connection between the story and the title wasn’t more obvious. Charlie, very shy, lives on the sidelines, watching, rather than participating. When he starts high school, however, things begin to change when he meet Patrick (Ezra Miller) and Sam (Emma Watson). Charlie’s new friends not only bring him into the center of his life but teach him about himself.

Okay, with a summary like that, I’m sure you are wondering how this is an interesting movie, but let me assure you, there is a lot more to it. The film was released in 2012 and directed by Stephen Chbosky. Interestingly, Chbosky not only directed the film but also wrote the book it was based on of the same name. Which is probably why the film is such a close adaptation. I read the book before seeing the film. I enjoyed it so much I stayed up all night to finish it. For a book about high school students it has some very raw, powerful prose. Chbosky is somehow able to put the spirit of that into his film.

What I believe is so resonating about this film is that it tells s story everyone can relate to. We all get lonely at times, or wish we were accepted more, or by different people, or that our romantic relationships were different. All of those ideas are here, and more. Which makes the film feel very honest, and sincere, and definitely not as contrived, as, say, a John Hughes movie. This is not that surprising, considering that both the novel and the film are based on the life of Stephen Chbosky.

It is a bit of a tragic film, but I don’t feel that it necessarily qualifies as a tragedy. As the film unfolds, viewers learn Charlie is on the sidelines of life so much because of a traumatic moment in his past. Towards the end, when the audience learns exactly what happens to Charlie, it’s very shocking and sad, but what the movie is really about is how he deals with it. Which really makes it a beautiful story.

The film is also edited very well. There is a moment Charlie kind of breaks down, and the editing starts skipping around so the audience starts having an experience comparable to what Charlie’s going through, which is very powerful.

As far as the acting, Emma Watson is great, and does a very convincing American accent. I want to be the new best friend of Ezra Miller. I did enjoy the performance of Logan Lerman, but he kept reminding me of a young Michael Cera. I guess it could be worse.

So, for a very artistic movie that is able to make high school students interesting, (probably because they are not cheerleaders) I give this movie an 8, and highly recommend people to read the book and/or see the film.

Advertisements

Donnie Brasco: Forget Aboud’ It!

I’ve watched gangster films before: The Godfather, of course, the biggie, The Untouchables, Public Enemies, American Gangster, for the most part, I don’t find this film genre especially riveting, except for some shining gems. When I say gems I mean The Godfather. Donnie Brasco is by no means a bad film. But it is not The Godfather. Then again, so few films are.

Donnie Brasco came out in 1997, and stars a young Johnny Depp and an aging Al Pacino. An FBI agent, Joseph Pistone,(Depp) who uses the alias Donnie Brasco, goes undercover to crack open the New York Italian mafia. Eventually, the middle manager, Lefty (Pacino) takes him under his wing. But the closer Joseph gets into the mob, the more he begins to identify with it, and even become the very same people he is trying to expose.

I enjoyed this film more than most gangster movies I’ve watched, and others have agreed. Donnie Brasco is considered as one of the iconic gangster movies in film history. It is based on a popular novel by Richard Woodley, is based on a true story, and was nominated for best writing and best screenplay based on material previously produced or published at the 1997 Oscars. The film does have some definite strengths.

The beginning is set up in total en medias res. For a while the audience really has no idea what is going on, which I think is meant to make viewers have a similar experience to Joseph as he’s absorbed into the mafia, a world so different from anything he’s ever known. It also creates the needed feel of tension and excitement. The character of Joseph is fleshed out in a very interesting way. The audience learns just enough about Joseph to barely understand him, so when he begins to be lost in the mafia world, we really start questioning him. The ending was blunt and powerful.

 

The only critique I have of this film is that I got quite bored for a good hour in the middle. It just didn’t hold my interest enough. And perhaps that is not a bad thing. Perhaps it just says I am just not quite so interested in most gangster films.

I feel like I want to give this film a 6, but it does have some really big strengths, but I don’t think it deserves a 7, so I will settle with a 6.5. It deserves that extra .5 if only because in the film Lefty forces Joseph to shave off his god-awful mustache. Let’s all thank him for keeping up Johnny Depp’s appearances.

I’M BACK!

Dear Squids! I know I have been pretty much MIA for two years. My life has been crazy. I just finished my first year of graduate school, and now I am on summer break and have some free time, so I thought it was time to revive my blog.

So, for my first new post, I thought I would go over the movies I saw in theater since my absence, provide a rating, and a breif explanation. So, here we go.

 

Anna Karenina: 2012

Rating: 8

 

I loved this movie. The acting was enthralling. The two main characters (Kiera Knightley and Jude Law) create such tangible, raw emotions more powerful than few other films. What I loved most about this movie was the way director Jon Wright makes it look like a play. The film begins with a curtain going up, and characters have extravagant gestures and motions in a delightful way. Also, the adding of the repetitive sound of the train that will eventually kill Anna Karenina (sorry for the spoiler alert if you have not yet seen the movie or read the book).

That said, This film is not without flaws. It is very long. A very reasonable problem considering this movie was adapted from a Tolstoy novel, but anyway I think the editing could have been just a bit tighter to shave off at least a half an hour.

 

Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunter: 2013

Rating: 2

I don’t remember too much about this movie, except for the amazing face that I was actually able to be dragged to see it. That said, this movie was entertaining, not a bad way to kill an hour and a half. That’s really it. It didn’t stick with me. It was predictable, unchallenging, and a clear formula action movie. All though I will admit the costumes were pretty cool.

 

Iron Man 3: 2013

Rating: 5

I believe the first Iron Man is actually a pretty good movie. I haven’t reviewed it on this blog, but I think I’d give it a rating of 7. I despised Iron Man 2. My favorite thing about Iron Man was the witty banter that Tony Stark (Robert Downy Jr.) has with Pepper Pots (Gwenyth Paltrow). The second movie completely loses it, is not near as innovative, was sloppily put together, and quite frankly, I found it boring. However, while I know a lot of fans hated Iron Man 3, I thought it was much better than Iron Man 2. I was relieved to see the witty repartee restored. I also found myself sitting on the edge of my seat like the first one. However, I still think Iron Man the original is the best of the trilogy. The third one had a few problems. I found the motives of the villain not very clearly established. And Pepper Pot’s moment in danger was very predictable. Still so much better than the second one. Then again, it’s not hard to make something better than complete crap.

 

Ender’s Game: 2013

Rating: 6

I was really looking forward to this movie. I loved the book. In fact, I read it in about two nights. I actually really enjoyed the film. I thought it was a very good book to film adaptation. Of course, some stuff was left out, but that is always the case. I think Gavin Hood kept what was needed to keep the themes of the book alive.

That said, I am not sure I would have enjoyed it as much as I did had I not read the book. I have a feeling without reading the book the film would have been very hard to follow.

 

Hunger Games: Catching Fire: 2013

Rating: 6

I preferred this film to the first one, which really surprised me. I found this movie was better put together, easier to follow, and the action didn’t give you a headache. I also found that this film is much stronger in resonating emotionally. It’s hard for me to explain why I gave it a 6 because it has been a number of months since I saw it, but I am clear I did not think it was a perfect film.

 

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug: 2013

Rating: 4

So if you have read my review of the first Hobbit, you know I was very disapointed by the movie. I do think this film is better, but only because of one thing: Smaug. Smaug the dragon was amazing. Benedict Cumberbatch was the perfect casting, just as much as Andy Serkis was for Gollum in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

That said, I found other aspects of the film bad enough to have made Tolkein turn in his grave. I will only write about one, because it really pissed me off: the romantic relationship between Killi and the female Elf, whatever her name was. I don’t have such a big issue that this story-line was not in the book. I understand that book to film adaptations need to make changes. However, I think it is possible for film makers to make these changes while still keeping the most important themes from the books alive. For example, was Tom Bombadil really necessary in The Fellowship of the Ring? No. So my question is, what the hell is this interspecies relationship attempting to do? It’s admirable if Jackson was trying to give a nod to interracial romance, but it seems so implausible after the LOTR trilogy taught us that elves and dwarves are at each other’s throats. For God sake. It took Legolas and Gimli three films to trust each other ad become friends. A hundred years before, a dwarf is going to fall in love with an Elf and vise versa in all of two minutes? I’m sorry Jackson. Think again.

 

Saving Mr. Banks: 2013

Rating: 10

I loved this movie. It is rarely that a a film makes me cry at the end not because of sadness, but because I am so overcome by the beauty. But I did that at the end of this film. I found no faults. I think the strongest aspect of this film was the cast. Emma Thompson is one of my favorite actresses, and she was amazing. As far as I am concerned, Tom Hanks is now the only man who can play Walt Disney, and Colin Farrell and Paul Giamatti were impeccable as well. However the film was also put together seamlessly as throughout the story are frequent flashbacks. Also, there is a powerful subtlety that really made this film a joy to watch.

 

Monuments Men: 2014

Rating: 4

I really wanted to see this movie because of it’s all-star cast and the historical narrative it is presenting. However, I was disapointed. The film suffered from the common issue of too many characters. It was plot driven, not character driven, so I couldn’t get as emotionally connected. Also, the plot continually going in different directions was incredibly hard to follow.

However, for a WWII movie this film has a good amount of enjoyable, clelver humor.

 

Jack Reacher: 2012

Rating: 2

I’ll be honest. The only reason I saw this film was because one day when I was living in Korea I took my host sisters to Daegu. We went to a theater and I told them we would see any movie they wanted. They picked Jack Reacher. I was disapointed, but I kept my word. I don’t seem to remember finding anything redeemable about this movie. A very typical action movie, down to the seemingly dark and corrupted hero to the villain who persuades his hench men to eat their fingers.

 

Epic: 2013

Rating: 7

I am often wary of going to see children’s movies, simply because a large portion of them are only meant to satisfy an audience of five-year-olds that it lacks any real depth. I still want to get the hour I lost watching G-Force. However, Epic left me presently surprised. While it seemed enjoyable to children, the story was complex enough to keep me enthralled. The creation of a microscopic civilization was detailed to the point that it almost seemed to reach LOTR standards for me. The animation was also very well done. I would say one of the best children’s films I have seen in the last few years.

 

OK, so I am hoping to get some new posts going in the next few days. Unfortunately, being a graduate student, I am quite poor, so I don’t know how much I will be able to review new films. I guess you’ll all have to be complacent with what I can access on Netflix.

 

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Low

I have been living in Korea for almost six months, and I have only seen two movies in theaters. The first was Step Up Revolution (because my young impressionable host sister wanted to). It took me three months but I finally got that wretched taste out of my mouth by seeing the Hobbit.

After the wild success of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, the Hobbit has been one of the most awaited films this year. An avid LOTR fan myself, I have been waiting just as eagerly. The Hobbit is based on the book that came before the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, the story of how Bilbo Baggins discovered the Ring.

Having read the Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, I knew to expect a different flavor. While LOTR was dark and depressing and full of death, the Hobbit was pretty much a children’s story that foreshadows the doom that approaches Middle Earth. These stories are very different, so I’m trying not to compare the two, but that’s kind of impossible. I didn’t exactly hate the Hobbit, but I didn’t enjoy it near as much as I did any of LOTR.

First, the bad. What I loved about LOTR was that when I watched, it never felt like I was watching a fantasy movie. It was so rich in detail and artistry that nothing felt fake. It was more like watching a historical documentary, but much more entertaining. As I was watching the Hobbit, I knew I was watching a fantasy movie.

For more specific complaints, I had a huge problem with a scene in which two giant men made of stone were ripping mountains apart. During this sequence, Bilbo and his party of Dwarves are split up and have to jump across a huge rift. Sound familiar?  Almost the exact thing happened in the Fellowship of the Ring when the Fellowship was in the Mines of Moria, but that was better done. Come on Peter Jackson, get a little more creative.

I hated the Goblins. The monsters in LOTR were awesome. In my head, I knew they had a lot of make up and CG, but they were still scary and real. They were believable.  The goblins were not. The Goblin king was also given a few zinger lines that were supposed to be funny, but they weren’t.

The Hobbit was also filled with too many very cliche moments. I know LOTR had moments with cliche ideas in them, but they were done in a subtle enough way that didn’t make you want to groan. There were too many times in the Hobbit when I was being clobbered over head. Okay, Thorin is going to go battle his arch enemy. I get it. He doesn’t have to run through flames for 15 minutes. Yes, the Hobbit was brave and the Dwarves are surprised. Guess who isn’t?

I also think the beginning of the movie took too long. I know the introduction of The Fellowship took forever, but at least it was entertaining and interesting. In The Hobbit, not so much. I understand why Jackson brought back Elijah Woods and Ian Holmes. That was a great nod to the fans. However, it wasn’t really needed, at least, not as long as it took. A lot of that could be cut and no one would miss it.

Okay, now to the nicer part. Regarding the Dwarves. In LOTR, you only really get to know one Dwarf: Gimli, and he only serves as comic relief. Good comic relief, but I enjoyed how in the Hobbit, you get to see more of Dwarvish culture and get to understand them more.

And somehow, Jackson was able to make Dwarves sexy. I don’t know how he did it, but Legolas who?

The bits of the Dragon that you see were done very well. I am so glad Smog was not revealed completely. Viewers saw just enough to want to come back for more.

By far, however, my favorite part of this movie was the Riddle in the Dark scene, or the scene with Bilbo and Golem. That scene was straight from the book, and it was great seeing such an iconic moment from the book come to life. Golem was one of my favorite parts of LOTR, so seeing him again was great. Andy Serkis made an interesting acting choice here. We saw a different Golem, kind of. His Smegol side and his Golem side were more divided, as if the Ring hadn’t taken complete control over him yet, which added a whole new depth to his character, or characters depending on how you think of it.

As a huge LOTR fan, what I really loved was getting to go back to Middle Earth one more time, and see characters I fell in love with and meet new ones. However, had this movie been made before the Lord of the Rings, I am not sure I would have become such a huge fan. I give The Hobbit a 6. Although I do not regret seeing it.

Tree of Life: Can You Say Epic Fail?

Image

So yesterday, I had a few free hours even though lately I have been wildly busy preparing for my year in Korea. I took this free time and said, “okay, I will watch a movie. Why not the Tree of Life?” Little did I expect what horror was awaiting me.

Image

I only got through 45 minutes of this movie, so for your plot summary I will rely on Wikipedia. Tree of Life is an independent drama released in 2011 directed by Terence Malick. The movie begins with a family in the 1950’s with three sons. One of the sons dies. Because of this, the ill-tempered father (Brad Pitt) puts too much pressure on one of his other sons, Jack (Sean Penn) and despite his deep love of music, Jack ends up becoming an architect. Reflecting on this, Jack fights to realize who he really is.

Image

Apparently, that is what the movie should have been about. However, there was so much random shit in Tree of Life that it didn’t seem to be about anything. For 95% of what I saw, my reaction was, “What the hell does this have to do with the story?” Pretty much, the entire 45 minutes that I watched were a bunch of abstract images plus some video footage of the actors thrown in and over-the-top whispered voice-overs saying stuff like “When did you first touch my heart?…And even then I knew my life held no meaning…And then I was aroused, but I wasn’t quite sure why…I became determined to live my life as a fish…”  I didn’t mind it for the first few minutes and thought it was just setting the tone, and soon stuff was really going to start happening. 45 minutes later, I realized that the entire fucking movie was going to be that way. And that is why I turned it off, because having to ask questions like “How does showing me a picture of The Horse-Head Nebula have anything to do with your son dying?” just pissed me off.

Image

It would be easy for someone to point out, hey you didn’t see the entire movie, so how do you know it’s utter crap? Quite a valid point. However, a movie has to keep the viewer’s interest. And this movie obviously didn’t if I had no problem turning it off. If that happens with a movie, it has utterly failed.

Image

What’s frustrating is that I usually like artistic movies, films that try new things and experiment and aren’t completely conventional. However, I feel as if Tree of Life was just so avante guard and abstract that it was completely inaccessible. If you can’t connect with a movie, with the story or the characters, you might as well be watching a slideshow of the vacation taken by someone you hate.

Image

If I had to say one good thing about this movie, it would be that the images I did see were beautiful. They made no sense, but were in fact stunning. Completely uneccesary, yet pretty to look at. Very much like Paris Hilton.

Image

Considering how angry this movie made me (I want those 45 minutes back!) I give it a 1. Try again Terence Malick. Better yet, don’t.

Image

Moonrise Kingdom: For Those of us Who Have Always Wanted to See Bill Murray Throw his Shoe at Edward Norton

Image

A few days ago my good friend Sara asked if I wanted to see the movie Moonrise Kingdom. Due to my preoccupations of preparing to travel to Korea, I had never heard of the film. When I heard Edward Norton was in it, I didn’t need to know anymore. Edward Norton is my all time favorite actor except for Geoffery Rush. I have never seen him in a bad movie.

Image

This movie reminded me of why I love films, and why even though sometimes I feel inundated by Hollywood crap, every now and then, I can go to a theater and smile completely through a masterpiece. Moonrise Kingdom is an indie dark comedy directed by Wes Anderson. It is set on a New England Island in 1965. Two children, Sam (Jared Gilman) and Suzy (Kara Hayward) have disappeared. They had met the previous summer, and decided to run away together. Sam’s scout master Randy Ward (Edward Norton), a police officer (Bruce Willis) and Suzy’s parents (Frances McDormand and Bill Murray) chase after them all over the island to retrieve them as a huge hurricane threatens in the distance.

Image

Image

When I watch movies, I look for the story. Because of that, I don’t particularly enjoy most comedies, because usually, comedies sacrifice the story for the sake of humor. However, that does not happen in Moonrise Kingdom. The humor is subtle, dry, and ironic. The style and situations of the movie are funny rather than a few cheap jokes. Because of that, the story has no need to be sacrificed. I also just tend to prefer this humor. It’s clever and witty and more powerful. Moonrise Kingdom has moments in which it makes fun of itself in a subtle enough way that doesn’t clobber you over the head like Sasha Baron Cohen. In most conventional comedies, you see the movie once and then it’s no longer funny. I feel like I could watch this movie over and over and still find it hilarious.

Image

Image

Edward Norton lived up to my expectations. He was just outrageous enough to be funny and yet also seem to be sincerely acting. And Bill Murray was a joy to watch. I think this has to be one of my favorite roles I’ve ever seen him in (except for Ghost Busters and Groundhog’s Day of course). I hope to always remember him only wearing pajama bottoms, carrying an ax and saying “I’m going to go chop a tree down,” in the middle of the night. And then I also must mention Bruce Willis. You might have read my earlier post on type casted actors (https://hereslookinatyousquid.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/the-top-ten-most-type-casted-actors-9-2/) in which I listed Bruce Willis as number one. Before seeing Moonrise Kingdom, I have just never really seen Bruce Willis in a movie and thought, “Wow, he’s such a good actor.” He seems to play the same character every time. But tonight he surprised me, which is something I never thought I would say. I will not claim he was the best actor ever in Moonrise Kingdom (Edward Norton always steals the show) but he was better than in any movie I have ever seen him in. I didn’t keep thinking “So why aren’t you in an action movie right now?”.

Image

Image

But the actors I really need to talk about are the two leads, the star crossed lovers Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward. This is both actors’ first movie. I think Kristen Stuart should take some lessons from Hayward. And Jared Gilman also achieved capturing my heart. I have no idea how Anderson was able to find two actors who could work so well together and feed off each other’s energy while still being so young. They should get together and make a baby, because that baby would be the best actor ever.

Image

And everything else about Moonrise Kingdom just seemed so perfect, from the acting, to the soundtrack, and even the special effects.  So for once I don’t really have anything to complain about. Just listen to me: go see this movie! It is awesome. I haven’t seen a better movie in theaters all summer, or perhaps even all year. Unsurprisingly, I give this movie a perfect 10.

Image

Comparing Mirror Mirror to Snow White and the Huntsman

Image

I doubt it has escaped the notice of most people that in quite a short span of time, two movies based on the fairytale of Snow White have been released to theaters. Mirror Mirror was released in March, and Snow White and the Huntsman came out June 1st. I have decided to do a double review and then compare the two. Because I can.

Mirror Mirror

Image

Mirror Mirror was a comedic fantasy directed by Tarsem Singh that really plays with the original fairytale. The evil Queen (Julia Roberts) realizes she is poor and decides marriage with a rich prince will save her. The prince she sets her heart on however, Prince Alcott (Armie Hammer) falls for the beautiful Snow White (Lily Collins). The evil Queen decides to have her killed. Snow White escapes, making it to the dark forest where she comes across a band of dwarf thieves. Snow White joins them and gathers the strength to take back her kingdom.

Image

While this movie was mostly geared toward children, I mostly enjoyed it. I thought the interpretation was very creative. My favorite part was that instead of the prince kissing Snow White to awaken her, in Mirror Mirror, Snow White kisses the prince to awaken him from thinking that he is a dog. And for the most part, Snow White fights for herself, rather than the Prince fighting for her. Although I didn’t like how in one scene Snow White feels the need to tell the Prince just that. It made me feel like I was being clubbed over the head. However, considering that this movie is for children, I can understand it.

Image

However, I found the characters very shallow. Even the most interesting character, the evil Queen is a flat cut out. The movie does not explain why she does what she does. Obviously she wants to be beautiful and powerful, but we need to know why. and possibly by poor acting or sloppy writing (I guess both), the characters of Snow White and the Prince are just not that fleshed out at all. I give this movie a 4 because I like the basic adaptation, but the characters just don’t hold up.

Image

Snow White and the Huntsman

Image

Snow White and the Huntsman is a British and American film directed by Rupert Sanders. In this version of Snow White, The evil Queen Revenna (Charlize Theron) discovers that Snow White’s heart can make her immortal. So when Snow Whte (Kristen Stuart) escapes imprisonment, the Queen orders the reluctant Huntsman (Chris Hensworth) to hunt her down. Quickly realizing the Queen’s deceit, the Hunstsman fights to get Snow White to safety so she can strike against the Queen and reclim her throne.

Image

This movie had some really awesome things about it. The first thing I think of is Charlize Theron. She was a great evil Queen, and a joy to watch. To my excitement, this version of the evil Queen was very fleshed out. The movie explains why she has become so bitter and evil: because she felt men use women until they were tired of them and then leave them to rot. So the Queen uses beauty as power.

Image

I also loved most of the special effects. The scene when the Queen breaks up into a bunch of crows is amazing. I also loved the mirror, which is basically a metallic, gelatinous man. There are many more, but those are the two I remember most.

Image

However, there were some problems. First of all, I had no idea what any of the dwarves were saying ever, which was quite frustrating. Even worse, other than the Queen, the characters were very flat. Even more than that, the relationships between them were shallow. There were quite a few moments where I felt there were a lot of missed opportunities. For example, when Snow White is reunited with her childhood friend who she has been separated from for at least ten years, wouldn’t you expect a scene which includes at most running towards each other across a field of daisies or at least an akward hug? And pretty much the entire movie sexual tension is growing between the Huntsman and Snow White. So when William, who clearly loves Snow White joins the group, that should disrupt the dynamic. I also felt the ending was very rushed and anticlimactic. However, the movie was already getting long, so I can understand these holes. I think to help this, the begiing sequence could have been shortened. It was a good sequence to be sure, but not all of it was needed.

Image

And then, I’m sure you were all expecting this, I have to complain about Kristen Stuart. She kind of seemed dazed and confused the entire movie. And even when she gives an inspiring peech, it seems as if she is thinking “Oh, I actually have a voice?” As my friend Kinsey said, Stuart was really good at letting the other actors act around her. Although I will admit she could have done a much worse job. But it wasn;t good enough. I suspect she was chosen because the film makers thought that if they chose Bella all the Twilight fans would come see the movie.

Image

So taking everything into account, I give Snow White and the Huntsman a 6. And it is worth seeing, even if all you do is drool after Thor.

Image

Comparison

Mirror Mirror and Snow White and the Huntsman have an interesting relationship. Mirror Mirror is a comedy meant for children while Snow White and the Huntsman was very dark and meant for young adults and up.

Obviously, both films are extremely different. However, both attempt to make the fairytale more relevant to today by making Snow White more active and assertive, thus making the story have more feminist appeal. I don’t think either truly succeeded, but I think Mirror Mirror got the closest. As I said before, Snow White is determined to fight for herself and she kisses the Prince rather than him kissing her. However, even though he says she doesn’t want to depend  the Prince’s help, she pretty much does.

Snow White and the Huntsman tries to do this to an extant. Snow White rides into battle with her army. She kills the Queen. However, this adaptation still has the awakening kiss, which is extremely misogynist if you understand the symbolism. It basically says that women need to wait until true love (aka a husband) before their sexual awakening. However, unlike Mirror Mirror, Snow White and the Huntsman does not end in a wedding, but rather Snow White’s coronation, making the story seem more about her instead of Snow White and the Huntsman together. I wonder if an adaptation of Snow White can be made in which there is no prince or romantic interest. But then it would be very far from the original fairy tale.

In conclusion, I would say Snow White and the Huntsman is the superior movie. It’s more dramatic and visually interesting. However, I think the story of Mirror Mirror is a more creative adaptation of Snow White.