Mythology Minute: Idunn from Norse mythology

(portrayed here by Swedish artist John Bauer in his "Loki and Idunn," 1911).

Idunn is the Norse Goddess of youth and regeneration, appropriate for this first weekend in April as the rains are falling and the birds are singing and the flowers are blooming.

She tended the orchard in which the holy fruits grew. Those fruits were eaten by the Gods and Goddesses to keep them young. Most depictions and descriptions claim those holy fruits were apples, but the oldest stories don't necessarily support that.

Though she's said to sit at court with the other deities, her stories are almost completely lost - except for one. Loki (of course) tricked her into leaving her orchard, and Idunn was abducted by a giant.

Because no one remained to tend the fruit of immortality, the deities began rapidly aging, and they demanded Loki right His wrong. Using Freyja's falcon cloak, Loki transformed into a huge bird, flew to the Giant's home, and rescued Idunn.

So as you celebrate the dawning of Spring, remember Idunn and the work She does tending the holy orchards.

This has been another Mythology Minute. To get a Myth of the Month in your inbox, subscribe to my newsletter at hdeanfisher.com.

And to read more about the nefarious dealings of the deities in humans' lives, check out my Medusa series at Barnes & Noble: Medusa: Rise of a Goddess by H Dean Fisher, Hardcover | Barnes & Noble®

Theocracy Watch:

This news out of Utah should worry anyone concerned about the separation of Church and State. Utah public education will begin requiring the Bible taught through "specific passages from the texts that allude to founding documents" of the US Constitution. IOW, if the Constitution mentions a Biblical idea, then that portion of the Bible should be discussed as a portion of Social Studies lessons in grades 3-12.

On the surface, this wording is designed to fit within the framework of the Supreme Court's 1963 decision that the Bible cannot be used for readings and recitations but only as a historical or literary text. However, as a former Evangelical Christian, I can assure you this legislation fits perfectly into the "Train up a child" mindset of propagating the Christian faith.

"Train up a child" means this: For an adult to maintain his Christian faith, he must first be trained in that faith as a child. It comes from Proverbs 22:6, "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it." Evangelical Christians call it "faith formation," "discipling children," "spiritual parenting," and "next-generation ministry." Sociologists call it "faith transmission."

Ever wonder how Christianity is the majority religion in the United States while Islam is the majority religion in Saudi Arabia, Judaism is the majority religion in Israel, and Hinduism is the majority religion in India? It's because the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu parents "transmit" their religion down to their children (again, faith transmission). No child is "born" Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Hindu - those religions are learned, just as the Greeks of 2,500 years ago taught their children about Zeus worship and the Egyptians of 4,000 years ago taught their children about Ra worship.

Just as the racial demographic in the US has been changing, so has the religious demographic. The latest data show white (non-Hispanic) people make up 59% (204 million) of the US population compared to 64% (223 million) about 15 years ago. In approximately the same period, Christianity has declined from 78% of the population in 2007 to 62% of the population in 2024. The steepest declines in Christianity are generational with 80% of the oldest adults saying they're Christians while only 46% of the youngest adults say they're Christians. And before you start claiming, “Those young adults will return to Christianity when they have children and get older,” remember that goes against both the Bible (“Train up a child…”) and against sociological research into faith transmission.

Which brings us back to that Utah legislation about teaching Bible passages that relate to the Constitution. The article doesn't say, but I'd bet good money the bill's sponsor is a devout Christian (possibly of the Mormon or the Evangelical variety) who's deeply concerned about both the shift in religious adherence and the shift in racial demographics (people concerned about one tend quite often to be concerned about the other) and that she's taken that Proverbs admonition to heart. How better to "train up a child" than to go to the place where children are "trained" and make sure the Bible gets inserted.

Believe me: As an Evangelical Christian for 30 years, I heard this preached, and I participated in prayers for exactly this kind of legislation. It was all "for the children," but let's call it what it is: religious indoctrination. And in this case, it's state-sponsored, and that should scare us all.

What to do next: This story's a few days old, and I don't know the status of the bill, but Utah residents should call their congressional reps and their governor's office and make it clear this bill should NOT pass. If you live anywhere else, watch for attempts like this in your own state legislatures - because they WILL happen - and be on the phone immediately with your own state reps and governor that you do NOT want religious education in the school system.

Utah students will need to learn Bible passages in American history lessons

Mythology Minute - Philotes from Greek mythology

(picture from 01greekmythology.blogspot.com)

The daughter of Nyx, the Goddess of the night, Philotes was a minor Goddess who appears in a few surviving stories, including Hesiod's Theogony.

She's the Goddess of affection, friendship, and sexual intercourse. She was a force for good in the universe, balancing the bad that Eris, the Goddess of Discord, brings into the world. (I think we could ALL use a lot more Philotes in our world right now instead of all this Eris we're dealing with!)

And here's a fun bit of trivia: Her name was applied to a genus of butterflies in North America: the Philotes sonorensis (pictured below).

This has been your Mythology Minute! To receive a Myth of the Month in your inbox, subscribe to my newsletter.

And check out my latest horror novel, "Drinking Witch's Blood," available in ebook at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Drinking-Witchs.../dp/1952811260...

"Wrath Goddess Sing" - book review

Just finished reading "Wrath Goddess Sing," a gift from my wife. Loved almost all of it.

It's a retelling of the Trojan War, but Achilles is a transwoman - gifted her woman's body by Athena in an early chapter. The human characters, including her cousin Patroklos and his Egyptian wife, Meryapi, is exceptional.

The battle scenes are phenomenal, and Maya Deane does a great job conveying the chaos and brutality of fighting in wars 3,000 years ago with bows & arrows, spears, swords, and horse-drawn chariots.

I also enjoyed the universality of the gods and goddesses, that Deane showed the commonality of a deity in one culture with the same deity in another, how they were known by different names but still worshipped for their core values and personalities.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book all the way up to the climax when it took a sudden (and unexpected) turn toward the supernatural. Once I got there, I clearly saw how Deane set it up, and it does make sense to the story, but I was hoping to see that finale on the battlefield.

I definitely recommend this if you want to see your mythology mixed with violent battles and a feminist edge that gives Achilles a new life in our modern literary world.

"The Bride" - film review

Caught “The Bride” this weekend, and I loved it.

It's more than a reimagining (reinvention?) of The Bride of Frankenstein, that 1935 film that gave the Bride a whopping 5 minutes of screentime. This is a feminist fairy tale wrapped in Gothic/Noir stylings that is at once gloriously garish but also annoyingly tropey.

This Bride (Jessie Buckley) is a resurrected 1930s independent woman who pushed the men in her life too far and died violently as a result. Resurrected to be Frank's (Christian Bale) forever-bride, she still embraces life to the extreme, dragging him along on a dancing/ partying/ hallucination-fueled road trip that's as much Bonnie & Clyde as it is Universal Monster.

For all that I wanted to root for this Bride and her feminist manifesto, the journey was annoyingly restrained by modern filmmaking tropes. It doesn't pass The Bechdel Test (there are several women in the film, they do talk with each other, BUT when they do so it's about her relation to Frank), and for all the Bride's agency, she's frequently a damsel-in-distress who needs Frank to rescue her.

We *could* say there's a message there, that powerful women are still being restrained by modern society, but nothing else in the film seems to be pointing toward that deeper text.

Even so, "The Bride" is the monster movie I wanted when I was a kid, the one in which the monster embraces her true self and seeks to reinvent herself as someone outside society - a theme hinted at in the trailer when she casually says, "What's my name? I just can't remember."

If you love monster movies and/or strong women, definitely catch this in the theater.

"Dune: Part Two" - film review

Dune is a tricky story for me to review. I saw the 1984 version in the theater, and I knew there was a dense story hidden beneath all that messy storytelling and mediocre (even by 1984 standards) special effects. I picked up the novel, blew through it in record time, and felt I lived through something so powerful I had to continue with the remaining three novels available at the time. I was drawn to Dune not only for the science fiction elements but also for the overt religious messages about the nature of prophecy, holy wars, and messianic figures. Considering the story now, after I’ve read far more SF, studied more history, and engaged with both mythological and feminist storytelling, and I can see the obvious use of the White Savior myth, the prejudicial undertones about “savage,” nomadic people, and the assumed patriarchal ordering of a society that is supposed to exist 10,000 years in the future. On one side, the Dune stories are incredibly important to my own youth, especially to my love of storytelling; on the other, the narrative’s shortcomings are only becoming more obvious with time.

Into all of those personal feelings drops one of the most technically astounding and beautiful films I’ve seen in years. Watching Dune: Part Two on Imax proved why the huge-screen format exists, to give filmmakers a massive pallet upon which they can portray something that is truly larger than life. The desert is alive, the music resonates through the senses, and Paul’s journey from exiled prince to messianic ruler feels overwhelming, especially as sandworm-riding Fremen crash through the screen and storm into our very theater. To say I was blown away is an understatement.

It’s obvious Denis Villeneuve (Blade Runner: 2049, Arrival) and his writing partner on these two Dune films, Jon Spaihts (Prometheus, Passengers), worked hard to update some of the most cringeworthy aspects of Frank Herbert’s novel. No longer do the Fremen speak such an obvious descendent-language of Arabic, and this movie’s Paul never refers to his holy war as a “Jihad.” The planetary ecologist in Dune: Part One was gender-flipped to a woman; in this film, Princess Irulan (Florence Pugh – Black Widow, Little Women) takes a more prominent role in her emperor-father’s political machinations, elevating her from a secretary to a mid-level power player; the Bene Gesserit Sisterhood plays a significant role in all power-plays throughout the empire; Chani (Zendaya – Spider-Man: No Way Home, The Greatest Showman) is shown as a ferocious warrior capable of leading desert raids against harvesters;  and Margot Fenring’s (Lea Seydoux – No Time to Die, The French Dispatch) husband is completely omitted, allowing her character more autonomy of actions. Most notably, Chani refuses to simply accept Paul’s political wedding to Princess Irulan, as she did in the novel and the two previous screen adaptations – which is good. Women in the US do not need to accept their husband’s harem-mates, and there is no reason to think they would have to do so 10,000 years in the future.

For all those choices the filmmakers made to modernize the characters and the story, they are still building upon a 60-year-old template that relegates women to secondary roles and glorifies the revolutionary power of an off-world savior rallying and leading native tribes to victory over violent colonialists. It is made only slightly more palatable by portraying the Bene Gesserit prophecies that point to Paul’s messianic rise as nothing more than political machinations of a priestly caste that he is simply using to his own advantage – but the outsider “from the stars” is still the white savior rescuing the poor natives who are incapable of rescuing themselves.

Overall, this Dune: Part Two adaptation is a phenomenal piece of cinematic storytelling that is aesthetically astounding. The filmmakers paint the canvas of the senses to overwhelming beauty, even when portraying the villainous Harkonnen on their harsh, black-and-white home planet. The film hits all the highest notes of the novel to perfection, everything from Paul and Chani’s love story, which takes up most of the first half of the film, to the overwhelming power of the Fremen riding their sandworms to military victory. Where the novel shows the greatest signs of aging, the filmmakers have attempted to modernize the narrative, but we’re still left with a story of men ruling a galaxy by force, women using their sexuality and political machinations to exert any crumbs of influence over the men in their lives, and a colonialist attitude toward nomadic “savages” in need of an outside savior. Is it uplifting? No. Does it do justice to the original source material? Absolutely, including updating some parts to make it more palatable to a modern audience. Is it worth seeing? From a cinematic perspective, absolutely - and on Imax.

Regarding Bechdels, the film falls short: 1) Yes, there are more than 2 women in the film – in fact, the filmmakers made an effort to highlight women whenever possible; 2) The women in the film speak to each other on occasion; 3) However, when those women speak to each other they are almost always discussing the male protagonist – Paul, or the military leader Muad-dib – and their relationship to him.

"Secret Invasion" - Episode 1 review...AKA "The Great Superhero Show (re)Fridge"

I heard a spoiler on episode 1 of Marvel’s Disney+ streaming show “Secret Invasion,” and it nearly kept me from watching. I finally decided to give it a shot tonight.

***SPOILER ALERT*** Cobie Smulders’ character Maria Hill gets killed in the first episode, and it was as stupid and predictable as I expected. I checked IMDB, and she’s listed as appearing in 5 episodes of this 6-episode series, so maybe it was a Skrull impersonating Agent Hill who got killed, or maybe a Skrull will impersonate her in future episodes (allowing the actress to continue working even if her character is dead), or maybe they resurrect her like all the other dead characters in MCU shows and movies (looking at you Agent Coulson) - but none of that matters because her death “served the storyline” of a male lead. Just like women’s deaths serve male leads’ storylines in so many shows these days. It’s called “fridging.”

The name “fridging” comes from a 1990s Green Lantern comic in which the hero’s girlfriend is killed and her body stuffed into a refrigerator to motivate the hero to action. It always happens to women; it (almost) never happens to men. Don’t believe me? “Gladiator”…his wife dies. “Batman Begins” (and every other Batman iteration)…his parents die, a rare example of a man also dying to serve the hero’s storyline. “The Crow”…his fiance is beaten, raped, and dies in the hospital. “The Vanishing”…his girlfriend is buried alive. “Deadpool 2”…his girlfriend dies. “The Bourne Supremacy”…his partner (a woman) is killed. “John Wick” (all four movies)…his wife dies. (But for some reason, the dog’s death hits him harder.) “Memento”…his wife dies. Sense a pattern? Start watching for it, and you realize just how often it shows up. Like All.The.Time.

As we watched the opening credits for the show, we were disturbed that almost everyone with any authority was a man: creators, producers, writers, actors, etc. That’s not to say that women can’t also fridge a woman’s character, but it’s a trope that men rely on in their storytelling. It’s lazy, misogynistic storytelling that devalues women, and we should be seeing something better.

While we’re at it, let’s review Episode 1 against The Bechdel Test: 1) Yes, there are three women in major roles in the episode; 2)…but, they never speak with each other. Am I surprised the episode also flunked that extremely low bar? Unfortunately, no.

"Indiana Jones & the Dial of Destiny" - film review

I’m an Indiana Jones fan. I’ve seen every movie in the theater, I own an Indy hat (that I wear to teach at my university), I frequently rewatch them all, and I loved the controversial fourth film, “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.” Knowing all that, you can probably guess I went into “Indiana Jones & the Dial of Destiny” expecting to have a good time – and I had a great time.

This Indiana Jones follows the formula of the originals with swashbuckling action, mysterious artifacts, tomb-raiding disguised as archaeology, and fast, quippy dialog. Some people have made a big deal about “Dial of Destiny” not having extensive, direct involvement of Steven Spielberg or George Lucas, but James Mangold (“Ford v Ferrari,” “Logan”) and his writing team have done an excellent job recreating the magic of the originals.

Unfortunately, therein lies the problem. The first Indiana Jones released over 40 years ago, and a lot has changed about what we consider belongs in both an action movie and inside a museum. We’re (slowly) moving to the realization that removing sacred objects from their original location and original people is not always best (which “Temple of Doom” actually got right in the end). We also expect more and better involvement from our leading women – which “Dial of Destiny” actually delivers in Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s character Helena. Unfortunately, the film also falls victim to the notion that action movie heroes have a revolving-door of women sidekicks, a problem for almost every Indy movie (excluding “Crystal Skull”): Karen Allen’s “Marion” in Raiders, Kate Capshaw’s “Willie” in Temple of Doom, Alison Doody’s “Elsa” in Last Crusade, and now Helena in Dial of Destiny. Even worse this time around, however, Marion’s absence is explained by a quick pan across a pile of divorce papers that seem to have little emotional bearing on our hero’s globe-trotting journey. Indy’s marriage, son, and now divorce seem seldom to be on his mind.

Overall, “Indiana Jones & the Dial of Destiny” is a fun, action-filled romp through history that mostly suffers from the weight of 40 years of its own history and the tropes that are assumed to belong in action/adventure movies.

***The Bechdel Test for “Indiana Jones & the Dial of Destiny”: 1) The film contains one woman in a major role, Phoebe Waller-Bridge. Karen Allen’s character shows up only in the film’s final 5 minutes, and I cannot consider that a “major role.” It’s barely long enough to be a cameo.

"The Flash" - film review

I debated seeing “The Flash” in theaters – Is it worth it? Will it be fun? Do I care at all about Flash? – and finally decided I would kick myself if I didn’t go. No, it wasn’t the special effects, the plot, or the whole “theater experience.” I could not pass up the opportunity to see Michael Keaton’s Batman once more on the big screen.

And that’s just one of Flash’s glaring problems. He is overshadowed in his own “solo” movie by all these other, bigger names, both in terms of star power as well as character power. Michael Keaton’s Batman is a classic at this point; Ben Affleck’s Batman is a powerful iteration of the character; Michael Shannon’s General Zod is a powerhouse of a villain; and Jeremy Irons brings a no-nonsense sensibility to butler Alfred Pennyworth. It’s not even that Ezra Miller is a bad actor – overall, their performance is pretty good – but how is anyone supposed to shine in the shadows of all those giants?

The film is an adaptation of the Flashpoint comic series, which is another problem. That was already done a decade ago as a DC animated straight-to-video feature, and the CW Flash series dealt extensively with the ramifications of the character meddling with time. It’s a been-there, done-that storyline that’s not even 10 years old.

Finally, the execution of the film is weak at best. The puerile humor sees the Flash get hit in the head with a candy bar, knock out his own tooth and then glue it back in (which creates a cringe-worthy recurring “joke” about that loose tooth), and discover his non-superpowered self is an unmotivated goofball. The Flash’s attempts to work with the Justice League do not go well as he knocks over a building, nearly destroys a bridge, and locks a baby in a microwave to “save it.” (Yes, the baby joke is supposed to be funny.)

The introduction of Sasha Calle’s Supergirl is one of the few bright spots in the film’s storytelling as Flash and Batman must break her out of a maximum-security prison where she has been kept locked away from the energy-infusing sunlight she so desperately needs. Barely alive and mostly skin-and-bones, this Supergirl battles her own feelings of hatred and fear toward humans, and it makes her character a fascinating, unique iteration. Frankly, her solo story seems the most interesting of anything else going on this film.

Overall, “The Flash” is a long, cringy disappointment. It was great to see Michael Keaton’s Batman once again kick villains’ butts – and the film’s ad campaign knew that was one of its biggest draws – but a film should not have to rely on 35-year-old cameos to have any value.

***The Bechdel Test for “The Flash”: 1) The film had three women in supposedly major roles, but…2) only Sasha Calle’s Supergirl added anything significant to the plot (Maribel Verdu was Barry Allen’s mother, and Kiersey Clemons was Barry Allen’s love interest), and the three women never spoke with each other. Simply put, the film also failed this extremely low bar.

"Harley Quinn" - streaming show review

I held off this review until I was sure this creative show wouldn’t fall victim to the whole…“Discovery and Warner merge, and HBO Max, which was successful on its own, is suddenly deemed not so successful because it was missing reality shows (what???), and then Discovery kills the ‘Batgirl’ movie that I really wanted to see but for some reason kept ‘The Flash’ in theaters even though it’s starring an actor who (allegedly) has anger management issues and ended up tanking at the box office anyway, and then Discovery took a hatchet to the entire HBOMax/Max lineup”…thing. Yes, I might have an opinion on all of that. Sorry (not-sorry) for the rant.

But it seems the “Harley Quinn” series was not only spared the “Batgirl” movie’s sad fate, but the adult animated series has been confirmed for a fourth season. Huzzah!

Before going much further, however, I must emphasize this is an adult animated series. As IMDB so succinctly states, “Harley Quinn” contains: moderate sex & nudity (I would say extreme sex and nudity in the Valentine’s Day episode); moderate alcohol, drugs, & smoking; moderate frightening & intense scenes; severe profanity; and severe violence & gore. Do not go into this thinking, “It’s a cartoon; it’s for kids.” Were these episodes shown at your local theater, they would each receive well-deserved R ratings.

So what makes this show worth a recommendation? The simple answer is it’s laugh-out-loud funny, an adrenaline shot into an otherwise dreary DC Universe, and a powerhouse of feminist and inclusive themes. If that wasn’t enough, it contains very smart writing, excellent voice acting, and seasons-long arcs with strong character development and growth.

At its core, the series is about a woman (Harley Quinn) leaving an abusive relationship (Joker) and striking out on her own, trying to figure out who she is and what she likes when she’s not focused on pleasing a man who can never be pleased. Season 1 shows Harley discovering who she is apart from her dysfunctional relationship; season 2 allows her personal growth, not just “away from someone” but toward something (and someone) she finds truly fulfilling; and season 3 is about her struggles to make a healthy relationship work, something she has failed at since childhood. Along the way, she battles the Justice League, the Legion of Doom, her own personal demons, and the entire Gotham City Police Department.

The series is as loud, brash, crude, and smart as its main protagonist, Harley Quinn, and it can be quite fulfilling in a way that many of the cookie-cutter superhero films these days are not.

***The Bechdel Test for the “Harley Quinn” series: 1) The series contains two women as mainstay characters in each episode, Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy, and also highlights several women as peripheral characters; 2) Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy speak with each other all the time, and they frequently interact with other women who make guest appearances; 3) Though the focus of conversations during season 1 tends to be on Harley Quinn’s dysfunctional relationship with Joker, she and Poison Ivy frequently discuss a variety of other topics throughout various episodes, including their own burgeoning romance as the series progresses.

"The Last of Us" - streaming show review

I’m not much of a zombie fan. Their stories have been done to death (Hah!), especially with “The Walking Dead” and its spinoffs and various clones dominating for more than a decade - and blowing their best twist, hope, in the first season. Precious little new material has been released about zombies since George Romero’s original “Night of the Living Dead” (1968), and much of what films do that is “new” is often not good. When the original, “Director’s Cut” ending is put back on Will Smith’s “I Am Legend” (2007), that film is truly provocative, but the theatrical ending was audience-tested crap. The original “Evil Dead” (1981) and its sequels, “Evil Dead 2” (1987) and “Army of Darkness” (1992), did an excellent job parodying zombies, but even that well has run completely dry as evidenced by “Ash vs. the Evil Dead” (2015-2018) abandoning smart satire in favor of schlocky jokes and gross-out practical effects.

All of that to say that my hopes were low going into the first episode of HBO Max’s “The Last of Us.” Add to that the fact that the property is based on a videogame - no matter how well-respected - and I was prepared to give up long before the end credits. I’m thrilled to say I was completely wrong.

The best thing the writers did was to move the focus of the stories off the zombies and onto nuanced, three-dimensional, human characters. We spend almost the entire first episode getting to know Joel (played with incredible range by Pedro Pascal) and his daughter, Sarah (Nico Parker). When the virus begins to hit, it builds slowly around the characters, ramping up the tension and (smartly) keeping the ravenous hordes at bay and off-screen for much of the time. The storytellers are confident in their presentation, saving the slavering undead for brief moments of shock that help us understand the threat without overly indulging our appetite for gore. Instead, the camera focuses our attention on the main characters and their emotions, and it helps draw us into their lives in a way that “The Walking Dead” never could (at least not for me).

Once the story jumps ahead 20 years to our current time, we’re introduced to Ellie, played brilliantly by Bella Ramsey, and the human drama only gets more intense. Joel is a shell of the man we met at the start of the first episode, and Ellie is a monster in her own right, supposedly abandoned by her mother, being trained to rule as a thug over the unwashed masses, tossed aside from one “caring adult” to another, and on the verge of being shot because she was infected. It’s hardly a spoiler to mention that she’s immune to the infection, and thankfully they move past that “twist” almost immediately. The entire first season focuses on Joel and Ellie’s growing relationship, with the zombies only showing up enough that we don’t forget them, and it is that relationship that increasingly drives the action of each episode.

Because I’ve never played the PS5-exclusive game, I have no idea how much of what appeared is because the videogame is that good or because the writers were that adept at translating the game into such an engaging season of television - but that doesn’t matter. Season 1 of “The Last of Us” is an incredible drama that is high on tension, moderate on gore (especially compared to other zombie shows), and at the top of its game for writing and acting. I highly recommend it.

The Bechdel Test for “The Last of Us”: 1) The show has numerous women in major roles; 2) those women frequently speak with each other over the course of the season; 3) and when they speak with each other, they discuss a variety of topics, mostly focused on how they can all stay alive. There is no romance (and therefore no man for Belle Ramsey’s Ellie to pine over), and the emotional arc follows the father/daughter relationship between the two main characters, giving each of them plenty of opportunities to bond and grow.

"Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves" - movie review

I started playing Dungeons & Dragons when I was a teen in the ‘80s, and I loved it. Then I got swept up in the Satanic Panic, I threw out all my books to “keep the evil from infecting our home,” and I didn’t play again for a couple decades. I’ve since changed my opinion on spirituality, taught my daughter how to play D&D, she and I taught my wife how to play, and now we play as a family as often as we all have time. It’s an incredibly entertaining and rewarding family activity.

So when we saw a trailer for the new “Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves” movie, we were all thrilled. We saw it opening weekend in Imax, and it was everything we hoped it would be. Starring Chris Pine, Michelle Rodriguez, and Hugh Grant, it is a fun, fast, action/adventure that effectively conveys the feeling of a D&D campaign while also winking at the audience for all the cliches that have popped up in every fantasy film for the past 40+ years.

The loosely-held plot revolves around a group of adventurers trying to retrieve a man’s daughter, steal a king’s treasure, kill an evil priestess, resurrect the hero’s long-dead wife, and…well, it doesn’t really matter all that much because it’s a mess of items just to keep our adventurers running, fighting, shooting spells, singing, and transforming into animals across the realm. The filmmakers know you’re there to see swords, spells, dragons, and witty, fast-paced adventures, and they deliver.

Thinking critically about the movie, however, I was disappointed when the credits rolled and not a single woman was listed among the directors, writers, or producers. There is plenty of fan-service and several moments to make both the men and women happy, but they also had to fridge* a woman in the first 15 minutes to motivate the hero to action, a trope that shows up far too often in men-led writing.

Regarding Bechdels, the film fairs better: 1) There are several women in the film; 2) they speak with each other often; and 3) when they speak with each other it is to discuss their goals and aspirations, none of which includes winning a man’s affection. Overall, I highly recommend it as a fluffy piece of fantasy adventure it aspires to be.

*To “fridge a woman” is to kill that woman for the sake of motivating the male hero to action. It gets its name from a Green Lantern comic in the early 1990s in which the hero’s girlfriend is killed and stuffed into a refrigerator. Look for this trope, and you’ll see it in far too many modern stories.

"The Witch's Heart" - Book Review

Simply put, “The Witch’s Heart” by Genevieve Gornichec is a beautiful retelling of Norse mythology. The basic plot revolves around the witch Angrboda and her life with the trickster God Loki, but the story is so much deeper than that.

In Norse mythology, the witch Gullveig went to Odin’s hall where she was stabbed with a spear and burnt three times, but she resurrected each time. (It’s a bit more complicated, but that’s all you need to understand this novel.) “The Witch’s Heart” picks up immediately after that third resurrection when Gullveig travels to the edge of an enchanted forest on one of the nine worlds and decides to leave everything and everyone behind; she reinvents herself as Angrboda. Loki, however, finds her and returns her heart, which had been stolen by the other Gods.

What follows is an incredible (and incredibly tumultuous) love story between Angrboda and Loki as they try to navigate their hidden romance, the sadistic whims of the Gods, and their own children, which are Hel (the Goddess of the afterlife), the wolf Fenrir (who is prophesied to kill Odin), and the world serpent Jormungandr (who is prophesied to kill Thor).

Gornichec weaves a stunning tapestry of Norse stories, some of which are shown directly (such as the children’s births) while others receive only off-hand references. I’ve been reading Norse myths since I was a child, but I’ve never read one story that attempted - and succeeded so well! - to bring them all together to tell one coherent tale. Parts of this novel are beautiful, such as the growing love between Angrboda and Loki; some parts are horribly disturbing, such as Angrboda’s abuse by the other Gods; but the entire novel is stunning in its emotional depth. You will feel real passion - both positive and negative - for these characters.

Regarding Bechdels*, the book is great. 1) It contains several women characters; 2) those characters interact with each other several times; 3) and when they interact, they discuss a variety of topics, sometimes about Loki but many times about other things going on around the Nine Realms. Overall, I highly recommend “The Witch’s Heart” by Genevieve Gornichec, especially if you’re looking for a story of Norse mythology that adheres more closely to tradition than the latest Marvel films.

"Morbius" - Film Review

I really wanted to like this movie. I’ve been enjoying the steady stream of superhero movies, and the antihero movies (Venom especially) have been fun. This one, though…

The dialog’s okay and the pacing is bad, but the actors are giving it their all. Jared Leto is sufficiently passionate, Matt Smith is obviously having fun being bad, and Adria Arjorna is trying hard to make us believe she’s in love. Unfortunately, that’s just not enough.

***Spoilers follow***

We’ve seen all this before, and there’s nothing to make this one unique. It religiously adheres to the Hero’s Journey: the hero is given a gift but won’t accept it; he experiences a road of trials and fails several times; he experiences true love (the devoted girlfriend); and he is forced to confront his greatest weakness, a friend he refuses to kill. Sound familiar?

If that’s not enough, the girlfriend is sidelined the moment Morbius gains his powers - she falls, bonks her head, and winds up in a coma because…I don’t know, because women are that fragile? Sure, why not. Upon recovering, though, she dutifully stands by her man (vampire?) as he seeks a cure. But (shock!) the villain kidnaps and kills her to force the final confrontation. Does all of that sound too familiar?

***End spoilers***

Overall, this is probably not even worth a rental. Sloppy writing leads to a yawn-inducing story that treads absolutely no new ground. Regarding Bechdels, it fails immediately: 1) There is only one woman in a major role, and she gets fridged TWICE (Was that really necessary???) in the film’s 90-minute runtime.

The Buzz "Lightyear" Boycott - Commentary

Over the Father’s Day weekend, I saw several posts requesting that people cancel (aka, boycott) the Buzz “Lightyear” movie because <gasp!> it depicted a healthy, lesbian relationship. Apparently, Disney is shoving LGBTQ issues down people’s throats, homosexuality is against God’s laws, and parents need to protect their children from such explicit depictions.

Media are powerful instruments of cultural representation as well as cultural change, that is true. My favorite fandom, Star Trek, has pushed cultural boundaries for more than 50 years, ever since Lt. Uhura was a bridge officer with all of the duties and responsibilities that went with that rank – and that portrayal inspired generations of African American women to reach for the stars.

As long as we’re talking representation, I’ve also included a variety of characters in my novels that represent different groups of people, including neuro-divergent, homosexual, and racial minority characters. My latest novel, “Medusa: Rise of a Goddess,” features a bisexual woman struggling to find love and acceptance – sadly, a very real struggle for so many people today!

Is it “shoving issues down people’s throats” when people of various backgrounds, sexualities, and ethnicities are portrayed accurately and respectfully in media? No; that’s just art representing reality.

Shoving things down people’s throats is the religious person coming to my door to tell me I follow the wrong religion. Shoving things down people’s throats is the guy in the park screaming at people that they’re going to Hell. Shoving things down people’s throats is mandating laws for everyone that are based on the religion of a select few.

And what about “God’s laws”? The weird thing about reading through the Bible as many times as I have (6) is that I’ve found all kinds of things that God has told people over the millennia to do, including: commit genocide, kill children, abort children, sacrifice people, stone people, etc. Which of those “laws” do you want to follow, and why not all of them? (Because some of them would convict you? Yup.)

As for parents’ need to protect their children from depictions in movies, I believe parents should certainly restrict their children from seeing...all the violence: the gun fights, fist fights, indiscriminate killings, and torture. I still remember the 10-year-old boy sitting a few seats away during a showing of “The Matrix” 25 years ago. Where is the righteous indignation at children being exposed to all the blood-filled death, destruction, and dismemberment?

Regarding “Lightyear,” which I have not yet seen, I would much rather that children see love modeled in as many ways as possible. Love is awesome! We need more love in this world. I commend any art form, any medium, any new story that let’s love shine through; that highlights healthy, loving relationships; and shows people the power of love. Don’t cancel love; show more love!

Be love.

Breaking the Bank - Film Review

I’m always up for a funny movie, so when the Kelsey Grammer comedy “Breaking the Bank” hit Netflix, I jumped right into it. What a mistake!

Grammer is Charles Bunburry, Chairman of Tufton’s bank, the oldest and most prestigious family-run bank in England. The catch? He’s been running the bank for decades without a clue what he’s doing. He can’t follow some of the simplest concepts of banking, he blindly follows his subordinates’ advice, and most of his decisions are made so as not to cause conflict with his wife, Penelope Tufton (played by a severely underused Tamsin Greig). She, however, knows everything banking, is the proper Tufton heir, and she probably would have inherited the bank if not for the fact she was born a woman.

If you’re asking yourself, “It’s the 21st century - who cares if a woman runs a bank?”, you’re not alone. When I explained the plot to my wife and daughter (who did not watch with me), they each asked that exact same question, and the movie provided no good answer. The entire comedic premise seems rooted in an outdated notion of gender roles, but it also retreads the tired tropes of the “wise foreigner” (a homeless Irish man, played by Pearce Quigley doing a fantastic job with the weak material he’s given) and the “principled daughter” (who rejects her family’s wealth to live in poverty and try to destroy capitalism and her family’s bank). The movie checks so many filmmaking boxes in its plot, characters, and jokes that it feels like a movie made by some Comedy Committee. (It was, instead, written by three men, one of whom had written nothing before this - and wrote nothing after.)

Regarding Bechdels, it should come as no surprise that it crashes spectacularly: 1) There are actually three women in significant roles in the film, wife Penelope, daughter Annabel, and sexy-employee Sophie, but… 2) Those three women never speak to each other alone. This is a movie focused on the financial redemption of a bumbling fool who gives us no reason to root for him except that he was incredibly wealthy and then lost it all by his own misguided ambition.

"The Book of Eli" - Film Review

I’m late to the theater on this one. I’ve wanted to watch it since its 2010 release, but it always struck me as far too bleak for whatever mood I was in – and I was right. It is bleak.

The world suffered an apocalypse, and now humanity scrounges in the mud and dust just to survive. The opening sequence shows our hero, Eli – played by the brilliant Denzel Washington – skewering and eating a cat. Roving gangs of bikers rule the wastelands between destitute cities full of junk dealers bartering for scraps, and clean water has become the most precious commodity in existence.

Eli, however, is on a mission from God. He has a holy book, a copy of the King James Bible, and the voice of God told him to take that book West. Carnegie, a mayor/thug played by the ever-delightful Gary Oldman, also wants the book, and he’s willing to kill anyone to get his hands on it. Mix in slave-girl Solara, Mila Kunis of “That ‘70s Show” and “Bad Moms” fame, and you pretty much have the main characters.

The mythology surrounding that Bible, however, attempts to elevate this film to something more than your traditional dystopian action flick. Eli heard the voice of God 30 years earlier, and he’s been walking west ever since, basically traveling his own Pilgrim’s Progress of which we see only the final leg. Carnegie knows the power of religion and holy books for controlling a population, though, and he’s willing to throw all his resources (expendable thugs/movie extras) into acquiring it so he can maintain his position of power. It’s a fascinating examination of the power of faith vs. the power of institutionalized religion – or at least, it COULD be if the filmmakers had chosen to explore that just a bit more. Instead, we receive just a taste of that conflict in the midst of shootouts, cannibalism, desperation, and endless…endless…endless wastelands upon which to walk or drive.

Speaking of all that walking/driving…why did Eli always walk along the highway where anyone with a running vehicle could catch up with him? And in a world where water is precious, where did the bad guy get his endless supply of gasoline? Good questions that were never dealt with at all. And though the film makes a really big deal about the power of that King James Bible to rescue humanity from all the desolation, what about holy books from the rest of the world? A Quran? A Torah? The Vedas? The Tipitaka? There are more religions in the world than just Christianity, but this is a very Euro-Christian centric narrative.

Overall, “The Book of Eli” is a good action flick with an undercurrent about the power of faith, but it could have been so much more if they had taken the time to explore those ideas a bit more. Regarding Bechdels, it fails: 1) There are actually four women with important roles in this film, but only Solara (Mila Kunis) has any substantial screen time; 2) she talks with her mother (Jennifer Beals) a couple times, but…; 3) those conversations always revolve around the protagonist, Eli. This one absolutely focuses on the male experiences – the conflict between Denzel Washington’s Eli and Gary Oldman’s Carnegie – and every woman in it only serves to further that storyline.

"The Batman" - Film Review

I’m a Batman fan; have been since I was a child. He doesn’t have any superpowers; he gets all of his powers from discipline, training, and gadgets he creates; and even if he “crosses the line,” it’s in service to the greater good. My favorite film Batman is Michael Keaton, but I’ve enjoyed almost all of the iterations since him.

Having said all that, I was a bit worried about this latest film. The trailers were non-stop action - and brutal action at that. Having now watched it, I can tell you those trailers are a bit of a mischaracterization of the actual film. Coming in at nearly 3 hours, easily 2/3 of its runtime is Batman being a detective, something we have not seen portrayed very well since the campy 1960’s Batman. It’s a welcome return to form for “the world’s greatest detective.”

Robert Pattinson does an excellent job portraying a brooding, vengeful Batman, but his Bruce Wayne - for the brief few minutes Bruce even makes an appearance - is just as brooding and vengeful, and that’s a missed opportunity for the film overall. It would have been nice to see how Batman/Bruce deal with the death of his parents in unique ways, but apparently this iteration does not. His relationship with Catwoman/Selina Kyle, however, is a delightful sidestep from all the brooding, and the film would have been better for a bit more time exploring that relationship. (There’s certainly room for more in the sequel, which is likely to come.)

What the trailers nailed perfectly, however, is all of that brutal violence - and “The Batman” is one of the most brutally violent films to get a PG-13 rating that I’ve seen. Riddler is a worthy opponent for the detective-Batman, but this Riddler is a cruel sadist who tortures his victims. He felt as if he sprang from a “Saw” movie more than from Batman’s world.

Overall, “The Batman” is an excellent iteration of the character. They went for a real noir flavor with the visuals and soundtrack; the actors do an excellent job with their characters; and if you pay attention to that hard PG-13 rating, you and your teens should find it enjoyable. As for Bechdels, well…not so good. 1) There are only 2 women in main roles in the film, and 2) they never speak to each other. This is a male-heavy movie that focuses on Batman’s story through and through.

"Mulan" - Film Review

Our entire family was disappointed when Disney announced its live-action “Mulan” would not be released to theaters. The trailers looked gorgeous, the plot gave us hope it would be empowering for women, and the action seemed tailored to the big screen. Alas…Covid.

Finally catching it on Blu-ray I can say that it is gorgeous, and the action is very fun, everything from the large battle scenes to the choreographed wirework. It really makes me wish we’d seen it on the big screen.

You probably already know the plot (Mulan takes her father’s place in the war and pretends to be a man), but they made some good changes for the transition to live action. First, they ditched Mushu, the animated dragon voiced by Eddie Murphy. I know Mushu has a loyal following, but I’m not a fan. It was nice to watch Mulan’s story unfold without the (unnecessary) comic relief interrupting every five minutes. Second, they focused on Mulan’s relationships with her fellow soldiers, which is also one of the strongest elements of the original. And third, they added menace to the antagonists in the form of Xianniang, a shape-shifting “witch” helping the invading armies. All good improvements.

As for empowering women, well…it does a pretty good job, especially for Disney, which doesn’t have the best record. Mulan holds her own with her fellow soldiers during training, finding unique ways to accomplish extreme physical feats; she is brave during the battles; and she understands battle tactics, effectively turning the tide and rescuing her fellow soldiers. Unfortunately, her character is not allowed to grow to her full potential until she sheds her armor and removes her helmet to allow her hair to flow freely (which makes for a great poster image, sure) - essentially, she’s not a true warrior until she sheds any remnants of masculinity and returns safely to “girl” status. It’s not a major point, but it sure would have been nice to see her fighting effectively while also wearing battlefield-appropriate armor, and it made no sense to the plot for her to retain her long hair while attempting to impersonate a man - except for the beautiful cinematography of her flying and leaping around the battlefield with that long hair flowing behind her.

Overall, it’s a fun movie that does a good job of modernizing a 20-year-old Disney movie. The battles and choreography are expansive and beautiful, and the more “realistic” portrayal (read: no Mushu) is a welcome update. As for Bechdels, it passes: 1) There are a few women in the film; 2) they speak to each other a few times; 3) and they don’t always discuss Mulan’s prospects for landing a guy, though that is the focus at the start of the movie when the town’s Matchmaker attempts to make her into an “acceptable” bride. (PG-13 for sequences of violence.)

Ava and Peppermint - Film Reviews

I’ve wanted to see both “Ava” and “Peppermint” (both R, and both deserving for violence and language) since I saw the trailers. This week I had the chance to catch both on Netflix, and my reactions toward them are polar opposite.

First, regarding “Ava”: I loved it. I’m a fan of all the actors, Jessica Chastain, John Malkovich, Common, Geena Davis, Ioan Gruffudd, Diana Silvers, Colin Farrell, and Joan Chen, and I could tell they were all having a good time making the movie. The plot is not that unique, an assassin (Chastain’s “Ava”) is having qualms about killing the people she’s hired to kill, and her agency decides to “retire” her. The characterization, however, is wonderfully three-dimensional. She’s former military, former drug user, former alcoholic, and she’s trying to keep her life together. She and her father had a falling-out, and she effectively isolated herself from the rest of her family, but now she would like to repair some of those relationships. Her sister’s fiance has gambling problems, and Ava thinks it can be solved with violence - because she solves her problems with violence. The wonderful thing, though, is that I could see her struggling with each of those decisions at different points in the film, and it made her a very relatable, sympathetic character in the middle of a been-there/done-that plot. Regarding Bechdels, it passed wonderfully: 1) There are several women in the film; 2) they speak with each other several times; 3) and those conversations are about a wide variety of topics, including familial and romantic relationships as well as business and pleasure.

Second, “Peppermint”: Jennifer Garner stars as a housewife who resorts to vengeance when her husband and daughter are gunned down in front of her - and the gang members go free because of money and power and corrupt officials. Unfortunately, that’s really the entire movie. Garner plays both halves of her Riley North character (Girl Scout mom and vengeful angel) very well, but everyone else is a one-note stereotype. The gang members are Hispanics covered in facial tattoos, they’re controlled by the Italian mob, homeless children are all innocent victims, every other woman in the film (all three of them) are only sex slaves or incompetent in some way, and the corrupt officials are so glaringly obvious in their corruption that people would have to actively look away not to realize it. It felt as if they did nothing more than gender-flip a 1970s Charles Bronson revenge script. Regarding Bechdels, it passes (There are three women in the film; two of them speak to each other; and they do not discuss romantic relationships), but that still does not elevate the film to anything more than a caricature-soup filled with lazy writing.