Saturday, October 31, 2026

Back in Black: Another Film Noir Blogathon

Welcome to Back in Black: Another Film Noir Blogathon!  Happy Halloween and happy Noirvember to all celebrate :-)


I'm so glad you're joining my co-host Quiggy at The Midnite Drive-In and me as we celebrate our love of film noir.  What better way for a cinephile to celebrate Halloween than by delving into this classic dark genre, right?  I'm so excited to read about all these darkly delicious movies!

Participants, please drop a link to your post(s) in the comments of this post or Quiggy's post, and we'll get you added to the roster.  Thanks!

Roster

at RealWeegieMidget Reviews


at The Midnite Drive-In


at The Midnite Drive-In

at Bill LeFurgy


"The Asphalt Jungle" (1950)

I spent about thirty years wanting to see The Asphalt Jungle (1950), but also a little afraid to watch it because I was worried it would disappoint me.  You see, I fell head over heels for Blackboard Jungle (1955) when I was fifteen, and I read in one of the random movie-trivia books I collected that the title for it was a riff on the title for one of the greatest noir movies ever, The Asphalt Jungle.  And that made me want to see this film.  But it also made me worry that maybe this wouldn't live up to how amazing Blackboard Jungle is.

Well, I'll never love Asphalt the way I love Blackboard, but that is just fine because they are wildly different movies, and I liked The Asphalt Jungle enough to add it to my movie collection after the first viewing, and watch it all a second time for this review.  Doesn't hurt that it kickstarted my emerging appreciation of Sterling Hayden.

The basic premise is this:  fresh out of prison, Doc Riedenschneider (Sam Jaffe) contacts a bookie called Cobby (Marc Lawrence) to ask if he knows some men who would be interested in participating in a heist.  He needs a "box man" (safecracker), a "hooligan" (muscle), a getaway driver, and a financial backer.  Cobby thinks this sounds like a great idea and suggests someone for each role.  The first part of the movie is basically "let's put together a team."

There is some SPOILAGE scattered throughout this review from here on out, but I try not to let slip the actual ending of the movie or what happens to various characters.  


Family man Louis Ciavelli (Anthony Caruso) is perpetually strapped for cash because he doesn't have a real job, but his baby keeps getting sick, and he's a great safecracker, so he signs on to be Riedenschneider's box man.


Horse-crazy Kentuckian William "Dix" Handley (Sterling Hayden) has a bad habit of picking losing horses and then having to go rob some store or whatever to get the money to pay his gambling debts to Cobby.  He'll be the hooligan in case there's trouble that needs to get punched in the face.  


Diner cook Gus Minissi (James Whitmore) is always ready to help a friend or passing acquaintance out, as long as it involves doing something illegal, plus he's always loaning money to people and then having none of his own, so he joins the crew as the getaway driver.


And bigtime lawyer Alonzo D. Emmerich (Louis Calhern -- who was also in Blackboard Jungle, coincidentally) offers to be the backer for private reasons of his own.  Those private reasons?  He's broke, partly because he spends way too much money on his cute little twinkie in the city, Angela (Marilyn Monroe).


Cobby helps connect the team members to each other and gets a cut of the take for his troubles.

I keep reading reviews for this movie that opine about how the Hays Code forced the filmmakers to shoehorn the moral "crime does not pay" into what would otherwise be a superb caper film.  I beg to disagree.  It's the fact that the criminals all pay such a high price for their lawbreaking that makes this film a masterpiece.  If they'd gotten away with the heist, fenced the jewels, and each walked off rich... that's so boring.  Who cares?  But the way their own inner demons doomed them all to fail from the start -- that's the stuff classic storytelling is made of.  (I'm sorry if you feel like that is spoilage -- but a heist film made under the Hays Code should have a pretty obvious ending, so I think I wrote that vaguely enough that you can still watch this for the first time and have surprises coming your way.)

Louis Ciavelli's besetting sin?  I think he's lazy.  Instead of getting a steady job and working hard at it, he floats around doing semi-legal and illegal things.  Dix's is gambling.  Gus's is... boredom, maybe?  The inability to mind his own business?  The desire to stick it to the cops?  Maybe all of them.  Emmerich has two: committing adultery with his little girlfriend while his wife is sick, and lying to everyone about everything, all the time.  Cobby's is greed, always trying to get a slice of whatever illegal is going on.  And Riedenschneider's downfall is tied to his pet sin of pedophilia.


So when this bunch of lowlifes plans the perfect heist, and things start to go wrong, everything doesn't fall apart because of a surprise burglar alarm or a stray bullet or the Hays Code, not really.  It goes wrong because each of the perpetrators is a sinful human being who has been indulging their vices and started traveling the road to ruin long before the movie begins.  The heist just speeds up their inevitable individual downfalls.

That's something film noir excels at, isn't it?  Showing us how one wrong decision will lead to another and another, a food chain of mistakes and misdeeds that will eventually swallow a person whole.  Occasionally, a character in a noir picture can break free of their shuffle toward doom by doing something very, very right and noble and good.  And you do run across noir characters whose only bad decisions involve being too nice to someone or loving someone too much, like Dix's sorta-girlfriend Doll (Jean Hagen).  But all great film noir revolves around someone making a bad choice, and events spiraling out of their control, and The Asphalt Jungle plays that out beautifully.

Sterling Hayden, Jean Hagen, and Marilyn Monroe give the stand-out performances here, as far as I'm concerned.  Sam Jaffe may have gotten the Oscar nomination for this film, but I think his acting wasn't nearly as interesting as any of theirs.


Sterling Hayden convinces us he's simultaneously a good-natured country boy and a remorseless robber.  Dix is so sweet and kind to Doll when she needs a place to stay -- he gives up his bed and sleeps on the couch, and we never see him made advances to her, even though she would obviously welcome them.  


But Dix also commits robbery repeatedly, stares so menacingly at a witness that he terrifies the man into not identifying him in a police lineup, and is willing to swing a big and practiced fist at anyone who gets in his way.  Yet by the end of the film, he breaks my heart.  I can't help thinking if he could have stayed in Kentucky even after his family lost everything during the Depression, he would have turned out okay.  Now that's a well-rounded performance.


Jean Hagen's character, Doll, is one of the only fairly decent people in the movie.  She's down on her luck, but she's got a job (albeit as a dancer [possibly an exotic one] in a "clip joint," where customers are routinely bilked out of their money), she keeps her promises, and she refuses to accept any of the heist's loot.  Her weakness is Dix, but he's not a vice, just a guy she fell in love with when she should have known better.  Which, I think, is why she is free and alive by the end.  If you've only seen her as brassy Lena Lamont in Singin' in the Rain (1952), you're going to be bowled over by her performance here -- she plays Doll as a sort of hesitant doe tiptoeing her way through the dirt that surrounds her.  She has seen enough of life to be careful and cautious about who she trusts, but can't help thinking the best about people once she does trust them.


As for Marilyn Monroe, her "kept woman" Angela is sweet, childish, enthusiastic, and thoroughly aware of how precarious her position is.  She's constantly adjusting her words and actions to see if they please the people around her just a little more.  We know Emmerich is her sugar daddy, and he's old enough to be her grandfather, but we someone don't blame Angela for this at all.  She's still somehow naive and cute and fresh, and yet we wholly believe she also is contented to be Emmerich's plaything.  Now there is a nuanced character for you, and it's no wonder Monroe got noticed because of this role.


Oh, and this is pretty random, but Emmerich has an employee who is played by Brad Dexter, and (like most people) I mostly know Brad Dexter as Harry in The Magnificent Seven (1960), so it's pretty wild to see him in this in '40s clothes instead of cowboy duds.


Is this movie family friendly?  I'd say it's teen-friendly.  There's some violence, obviously there's a lot of illegal stuff going on, alcohol and tobacco use is pervasive, and there's a suicide that happens off-camera (but we hear the shot).  Emmerich and Angela kiss once or twice, but that's it; Doll and Dix share an apartment for a few days (but appear to not be sharing a bed); and Riedenschneider's talk about yearning for young Mexican girls and leering at teenage girls dancing to Jukebox records is just oblique enough to be icky without being explicit.  This passed the Hays Code, y'all, so all sexual activity is only hinted at, not shown or even talked about directly.  And there's no cussing.


This has been my first contribution to Back in Black: Another Film Noir Blogathon hosted by myself and The Midnite Drive-In this weekend.  I'll be posting an essay on why I love film noir tomorrow.

Here's one last screencap of Sterling Hayden because I didn't have anywhere else to put it.  And that's how you know he really is my new onscreen fascination, lol.

Thursday, October 15, 2026

"Angel and the Badman" (2026) -- Initial Thoughts

There's a particular kind of joy I get when watching a western on the big screen.  The wide-open spaces, the horses, the sprawling stories -- they just beg for a big, big screen.

So, I'm really happy I managed to see this latest remake of Angel and the Badman on the big screen.  It was visually lovely when writ large that way.  There were a handful of shots that I wish I could screencap and share with you, because they were absolutely gorgeous.  Sunlight filtering through the walls of a barn.  A beautiful sky reflected in a still pond.  An abandoned mission that captured my interest especially much, even though it's only onscreen a tiny bit here and there.  Very cool set, that one.

I was especially fond of its deliberate color palette -- filming on location in New Mexico gave it a lot of browns and sands and beiges, but also huge blue skies to balance it all.  

And those were the two main colors of the film: brown and blue.  Dirt and sky.  Earthly concerns and heavenly concerns. Quirt Evans (Zachary Levi) gradually leaves the earthy, worldly part of society to join the quiet farming life of Penny (Meg Fraser) and her family.  As he changes, he goes from wearing primarily brown to more and more dark blue.  Penny herself wears a lot of bright and light blue throughout the movie, and the filmmakers like to position her against the blue sky.


I'm going to try REALLY hard NOT to spend this whole post comparing this movie with the 1947 original that starred John Wayne, Gail Russell, and Harry Carey.  I will dig a little into comparisons at the end of the post, though.  Also, although I'm going to be critical of this movie farther down in this post, I do want to say that I very much enjoyed it.  I hope it does well at the box office.  I hope Angel Studios makes more westerns.  I especially hope Zachary Levi makes more westerns, because he was surprisingly well suited to the genre.

In fact, this movie's biggest strength is its cast.  


I've been passingly familiar with Zachary Levi for quite a while now -- mainly from his playing Fandral in two of the Thor movies, plus voicing Flynn Ryder in Tangled (2010).  Now, I am always prepared to like a guy in a cowboy hat riding a horse.  In fact, if you look at my favorite actors, they're all guys who either have made westerns or look like they ought to make westerns.  But I was not prepared for Levi's particular blend of playful and broken to be so, so effective in a western.  His double-takes were my favorite thing in the whole movie.  He absolutely convinced me Quirt Evans was a bad guy who wouldn't mind not being a bad guy anymore, but who wasn't real upset with being on the wrong side of the law either.  His initial motivations seemed to be simply to get what he could, however he could, and hang onto it as long as he could.  Kind of a Man With No Name sort of vibe, but with more humor and less squinting.

Tommy Lee Jones, I've loved since I was 13 and first saw The Fugitive (1993), which has remained a top favorite film of mine ever since.  Jones will one hundred percent elevate any film he's involved in, without fail.  He cannot be boring.  Cranky, cross, bitter, mean, acerbic -- sure, he can and will be any of those.  But boring?  Never.  And he's not boring here, playing semi-patient and fairly inscrutable Marshal McClintock.

Meg Fraser was fine as Penny Worth.  Her grandma Harriet (Melissa Chambers) was an absolute hoot, and would have been my favorite character if not for something dumb the script did toward the end.  


I've seen Neal McDonough in a handful of things -- I probably know him best as the bad guy who takes on Dwayne Johnson in Walking Tall (2004), which I have seen a surprising number of times (or maybe not surprising, lol), and I've seen him in a lot of random things over the years.  I'm pretty fond of him as "Dum Dum" Dugan, one of the Howling Commandos in Captain America: The First Avenger (2011).  I was left wondering if the wolf pelt collar of his coat was a nod to the Sykes family in Horizon: An American Saga, Chapter One (2024).  McDonough uses his ice blue eyes to chilling effect as infamous outlaw Laredo in this, but his character remained hard to figure out throughout.  No the actor's fault, I think -- I'm blaming the script.

In fact, I had kind of a lot of issues with the writing.  Which I'm going to vent my spleen about here, and it's going to involve SPOILAGE, so please skip to the picture of Tommy Lee Jones on a horse if you want to avoid SPOILERS.

Okay.  So.  Um.  First of all, instead of the Worth family being Quakers like they are in the 1947 version, they are what my dad called "Little House on the Prairie Christians."  In other words, generic churchgoers who belong to a generic church and are devoted to Judeo-Christian values and platitudes without talking at all about central Christian things like a sinner's need for a savior.  This movie did have a church scene where the pastor mentioned Jesus, so that's a little more actual-Christian than we usually see in this sort of movie.  But making them generic Christians instead of specifically Quakers made the ending falter, and muddied the motivations for the whole Worth family.

Especially at the ending, when the writers caused me to lose all sympathy for and confidence in Penny's mom and grandma.  Grandma Harriet has been a ball of fire through the whole movie.  She's spitting out opinions and making sly little comments and being as full of spit and vinegar as she can... until the ending, when (TOTAL SPOILER) Laredo goes upstairs to rape her granddaughter Penny.  Penny's mom has been pretty strong and capable throughout the film, too.  But when Laredo tells those women if they interfere or make any noise or do anything at all while he is upstairs, he will kill Penny... those two women knuckle under.  If they'd been Quakers, okay, they have a very real and understandable reason to shun violence of every sort.  That would be a little bit believable.  Maybe.  But the way this is, with them being generic Christians?  What happened to all the Bible passages about defending the helpless, for instance?

I'm sorry, but I don't care how scary a bad guy is.  If he tells me to sit still and be quiet while he rapes my child, he will only be doing that over my literally dead body.  And with as many injuries as I can inflict on him in a short period of time -- eye-gouging would probably go a long way to stopping him completely.  As I recall, he didn't even have his gun out when he was threatening them at this point.  Grandma could have thrown her cane at him to distract him while Mom went for his face with her fingernails, if nothing else.  So, I lost all respect for Penny's mom and grandma right there, and it's all the writers' fault.  Laredo could have tied them up.  Knocked them unconscious.  Killed them -- he's shooting people all over the place in the film, so I don't see why he would stop here and now.  Killing them would really be the most sensible thing for him to do.  We all know he's going to do that anyway, eventually.  The route the writers chose is inconsistent for his character, illogical, and a wimpy writing choice.

Speaking of that ending, we gradually see that Laredo has a lot of weird sores and scars and pustules and things all over him, which I guess when tied to his chronic cough and his earlier request for mercury are supposed to point to him having syphilis.  This is just not necessary, y'all.  Make him Consumptive (my assumption for most of the film) and have done with the nasty VD implications.  He's already a horrible character without this, AND they never tie this into ANY part of the plot, so it's not necessary in any way.

Furthermore, having the Worths just be generic Christians means that Quirt does NOT have to make a big decision about whether or not to give up violence.  In the original film, he's not an outlaw who's been running around stealing gold from other outlaws, he's a guy who just got out of prison after serving time involved with avenging his dad's murder and is trying to evade the rest of his dad's killers, who are now after him.  I don't mind them changing Quirt to being an actual outlaw in this movie, but making the Worths not Quakers anymore means they pull the teeth of the central question of the story: can Quirt stop relying on his own violent abilities and start relying on God to take care of him instead?

The showdown in the original revolves around that question.  The showdown in this new version just revolves around "can the bad guy be stopped in time before he ravages Penny and kills her and her family."  Quirt really doesn't have to give anything up, aside from deciding he's okay with being a non-cool farmer type and no longer risking getting shot while stealing gold.  He doesn't get a chance to grow and change much -- his big character arc is going from caring only about himself to also caring about three or four other people.  Not very interesting.  

Also, whyyyyyy did the writers decide it would be a great idea to paint Marshal McClintock and his deputies as less-than-savory characters and imply they're involved in disreputable things?  Can't we have an actually good, upright lawman here?  There's no point to that little piece of storytelling.  It felt mean.  

While we're talking about things that don't make sense, HOW on earth did Laredo kill the doctor and his patient and the guy with the broken tooth, presumably by shooting them, in the middle of town in broad daylight, and nobody noticed for like a whole day?  Guns aren't that quiet!  That town wasn't that loud!  My dudes.  Think these things through.


Okay, that's enough.  I did enjoy watching this movie.  It's possible I'll watch it again, but mainly just for Zachary Levi and Tommy Lee Jones.

Is this movie family friendly?  Uh, no.  Handful of cuss words.  Shooting and bloody wounds, though no graphic gore.  Whores are in several scenes and referred to as such.  The word 'rape' doesn't get used, but is obviously intended by more than one character on more than one occasion.  It's implied that Quirt is used to bedding the sort of women who might enjoy tying a man to a bedframe.  

While this wasn't bad, I definitely recommend the 1947 version.  It makes sense, it's family friendly, and it's really fun.  The Paramount YouTube channel provides this excellent print for free viewing.

I think I'll watch it with my teens after supper tonight :-D

Monday, October 12, 2026

Ranking Hugh Jackman's Movies by Favorite

It's Hugh Jackman's birthday today!  


To celebrate, I've collected up all the movies of his that I've seen so far, and ranked them according to how much I love them.  All titles are linked to my reviews, if you're curious about any of them :-)  

Considering he's one of my top favorite actors, I feel like I haven't seen all that many of his movies, but I also have seen several of these more than a dozen times, and a couple of them, I've probably seen at least twenty times, so... there's that...

4. X-Men (2000)
7. Australia (2008)
8. Someone Like You (2001)
9. Logan (2017)
10. Oklahoma! (1999)

Wolverine has been my favorite superhero since before the first X-Men movie came out -- I became a fan of his in the 1990s as a teen, mainly from his recurring presence in the Spider-man Magazine, which my brother subscribed to, but I always read too.

So, it's not at all surprising that he's playing Wolverine in six of my top ten favorites of his movies.  It might actually be kind of surprising that he's not playing Wolverine in all of them.  (But I have only seen him play Wolvie nine times.  Such is life.)


11. Les Miserables (2012)
13. Song Sung Blue (2025)
14. Kate and Leopold (2001)
15. The Wolverine (2013)
16. X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)
17. Scoop (2006)
18. Van Helsing (2004)
19. Pan (2015)
20. Swordfish (2001)

I think Song Sung Blue might climb higher on this list eventually, after a few more viewings.  But for right now, that's where it fits.

21. The Prestige (2006)

Yes, I know The Prestige is actually way better than the three I put right above it.  I don't care.  I really hate it.  It disturbs me a lot.  I try not to even think about it.

Thursday, October 08, 2026

Movie Music: Carter Burwell's "Conspiracy Theory" (1997)

I know it's been ages since I shared a movie soundtrack review, so it's high time I discuss another beloved soundtrack with you! Today, it's Carter Burwell's score for Conspiracy Theory (1997). This is one of those albums that I have listened to so often, it's ingrained in my brain. I don't actually listen to it that often anymore because I can pull up my favorite cues in my memory and listen to them there. 

I'll start with the main theme, listed as "Conspiracy Theory" on the soundtrack. It gives you a great feel for what the movie is like: relatively cheerful, with a lot of energy. The part that kicks in at 1:48 is my favorite -- that theme makes my consciousness soar. 


That theme gets repeated in the score's final cue, "Riding," beginning right around 2:00. I actually bought this score just for that theme, and I recorded just that thirty seconds or so on a cassette tape (yes, I am that old) over and over and over and over so I could listen to only it. The rest of this track is nice too, beginning with a gentle tenderness that builds to a sort of peaceful anticipation, then explodes with joy. But those trumpets are what really hit my sweet spots.


I also quite like "Turning into a Jerry" because of how it opens with a sweet simplicity, then switches to a nice jazz beat with an off-kilter and slightly menacing melody played over it. It's short and tantalizing and leaves me wanting a bit more. It's also a great musical depiction of the main character, Jerry Fletcher, who is also sweet, off-kilter, and slightly menacing. 


You can find the whole soundtrack's playlist here on YouTube. 

(This review originally appeared here at J and J Productions on September 25, 2015.)

Saturday, October 03, 2026

"The Prince and the Showgirl" (1957) -- Initial Thoughts

Someone told me that the movie Beautician and the Beast (1997) is basically a remake of The Prince and the Showgirl (1957).  Since I find the former to be winsome and cute and charming, I figured I would like the latter a lot too.  Especially since I really like both Laurence Olivier and Marilyn Monroe.

Alas, I did not find The Prince and the Showgirl winsome or cute or charming.

I did laugh a few times here and there, but almost always in a sort of incredulous way, like, "Hah! Can you believe that?"

The Prince Regent (Laurence Olivier) of the fictitious kingdom of Carpathia and his teen son, King Nicolas (Jeremy Spenser), arrive in London to attend the coronation of King George V in 1911.  The Prince Regent attends a comic opera their first evening in London, with the obvious purpose of choosing a playmate for the evening, possibly for the week.  He gets one of his underlings to procure said playmate.  It's completely believable and completely icky.

The Prince Regent chooses American actress Elsie Marina (Marilyn Monroe), and his underling asks her to attend a little supper that evening at the Carpathian embassy.  At first, Elsie thinks this is an up-and-up invitation to a supper party.  She quickly realizes it isn't, and proceeds to predict all the hackneyed lines that the Prince Regent will use to try to seduce her.

It is pretty funny when the Prince Regent uses the exact lines Elsie expected.  It is not funny when he plies her with vodka, with the obvious intention of bedding her as soon as she's too drunk to say no.  The fact that he doesn't assault her when she actually passes out from all the vodka is, I suppose, a small mark in his favor.  But by then, the whole "fifty-year-old man trying to have his way with a thirty-year-old woman" schtick had made my skin crawl so much, I couldn't really get past it.

Make no mistake -- Marilyn Monroe is really cute and funny in this movie.  And Laurence Olivier was actually quite funny too.  But the whole premise was so distasteful to me that I simply did not enjoy it much.  That is purely a personal reaction.  Your mileage may absolutely vary.  

But I will stick with The Beautician and the Beast, in which a grumpy widowed king slowly falls in love with the woman he hired to teach his children, which is far different from a grumpy widowed king trying to bed a woman he picked up randomly at the theater.  And far superior, in my opinion.

Is this movie family friendly?  Nope.

Tuesday, September 29, 2026

Drifting Leaves: An Autumn Tag

My friend Olivia tagged me with this little seasonal challenge over on her blog, Meanwhile, in Rivendell... last fall.  I'm in the mood for blog tags lately, so finding it in my drafts was perfect timing.  Belated thanks, Olivia!


Here are this tag's rules:

1. Download the cover photo and use it for your post (check)
2. Acknowledge the person who tagged you (check) 
3. Tag others and comment on their blog to let them know! (check) 
4. Slip into autumn vibes (check)

And here are the tag questions:

1. If autumn isn't your favourite season, what is? And if autumn is your favourite season, why? 

Where I currently live, autumn is my favorite.  Winter is my true favorite, but the winters here are mostly grey and ugly and barren, with no snow to cheer up and beautify the world except for a couple of days here and there.  I am passionately in love with snow (and I have lived in Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Connecticut, so I know whereof I speak -- this is not a childish and frivolous love) and Christmas and so many wintery things -- but winter here is disappointing.  

So I love autumn best here.  And that's because it's when we can say farewell to something I hate: being hot.  I really hate being hot.  And it is hot here from late May through mid-September.  It's quite disgusting, Holmes.  But when fall finally arrives, the heat leaves and I feel like myself again.  (I actually get the summertime version of Seasonal Affective Disorder toward the end of most summers, so I literally mean I feel more like myself again when autumn comes to rescue me.)  Also, I get very creative in the fall and usually do some of my best writing then.  And I love all the changing colors of the tree leaves.  And I love to bake, but it's too hot in the summer to bake much, so I can bake more again once the weather cools down!

(All photos in this post are my own.)

2. What is your favourite thing that you do each autumn? 

I love to go to Colonial Williamsburg in the fall to see all the beautiful trees and drink hot apple cider while strolling down Duke of Gloucester Street.  It might be my favorite season to spend there, though come springtime, I'll say that's my favorite.  Both are so beautiful!


For the past few years, we have gone to Colonial Williamsburg in mid-November to see them fire their bricks.  They build a giant kiln out of unfired bricks that they made all during the spring and summer, and then build a massive fire inside it and bake the bricks.  It's amazing to watch.


3. What are a couple of your favourite autumn memories? 

I have a lot of fun making costumes, and I have some great memories of making unusual costumes for my kids, especially when they were very small.  A fire truck, an airplane, a big squishy pumpkin, and a Lego person were some of my favorites to try to figure out.  

4. What book most reminds you of the autumn? Movie? 

The Hound of the Baskervilles by A. Conan Doyle is set in October, and it's hands-down my favorite fall read.  I am exceedingly fond of the 1988 version starring Jeremy Brett, and we watch it every October.  Well, most Octobers -- I'm sure we have skipped a year once or twice.  But generally, we cozy up with it sometime in the fall.


5. What is your favourite drink for the season? 

I love hot apple cider.  And cold apple cider.  It's one of the few things I really only drink in autumn.

6. What is one new thing you want to do this autumn? 

I am contemplating making homemade apple butter for the first time.

7. Do you decorate for the autumn? If so, how soon? If not, why? 

I do, a bit.  I hang seasonal wreaths or other decor on the closet door in our foyer, and I made a fall-themed wreath years and years ago to use in autumn.  This year, I pulled all the flowers and things off it and redecorated it with a mix of a few of the old pieces and some new things.  Here's how it turned out:


I used the bits and bobs that were left over from that project to make a triangular wreath-ish thing to go around a whole bunch of battery-operated candles as a centerpiece for our dining room table.  Three of the candles are in tall glass candle holders that my kids decoupaged with autumn leaves they'd collected.  They made those years ago, and I really like how they turned out.  They've lasted so well, too!


I have a few other things I bring out just for Thanksgiving to put on my mantel, but this is the bulk of my autumn decorations.

8. What is your favourite way to celebrate Thanksgiving? 

With my family, either at my house or my brother's house.  I loved celebrating it in Colonial Williamsburg, but now that Dad is gone, I don't really want to do that again.

9. What colour makes you think most of autumn? 

Dark orange.  Orange of all sorts, really -- the only time of year I don't mind the color orange is autumn.

10. Type up a list of ten words or names that encapsulate the season of autumn for you.

Cool
Crisp
Welcome
Change
Creativity
Renewal
Hope
Comfort
Finally
Cozy


I hereby tag:



Here's a clean list of the tag questions for you to copy with ease:

1. If autumn isn't your favourite season, what is? And if autumn is your favourite season, why? 
2. What is your favourite thing that you do each autumn? 
3. What are a couple of your favourite autumn memories? 
4. What book most reminds you of the autumn? Movie? 
5. What is your favourite drink for the season? 
6. What is one new thing you want to do this autumn? 
7. Do you decorate for the autumn? If so, how soon? If not, why? 
8. What is your favourite way to celebrate Thanksgiving? 
9. What colour makes you think most of autumn? 
10. Type up a list of ten words or names that encapsulate the season of autumn for you.