Mud

Mud directed by Jeff Nichols starring Matthew McConaughey, Ty Sheridan, Jacob Lofland, Sam Shepard, Reese Witherspoon, Sarah Paulson, and Michael Shannon.

There's a saying I know that goes like this, "Any fool can complicate things but it takes true genius to make simplicity sing."  This movie is pure evidence of that statement in all of its glory.  There is absolutely nothing complicated about this story.  Two boys find a boat in a tree, left there from a time when the placed had flooded, and then befriend a man they find there.  That's it, there's nothing really more complicated than that, yet all the complication arises, not from the storyline, but from the rich characters that are mined for everything that defines character development and the relationships of these characters.  Ultimately this is story about moving from childhood into adulthood, from innocence into experience.  It's a timely tale that has been told a million times over, but it's also a theme, that when done right, connects to anyone who watches it, because everyone remembers going through the innocence to experience of childhood.  It's a universal theme that connects us all.

This is not a movie with a powerhouse budget behind it.  This is not a movie that relies on spectacle or over-the-top action scenes or set pieces.  This is not a movie churned out by the Hollywood factory of movie making.  I bet this was a hard movie to get made because of how simplistic it is and how anti-Hollywood everything about it is.  Even when I was writing what the movie was about, up above, I realized how simple the story line was.  But it's that simplicity that really makes this movie work.  It's that simplicity that ultimately sells this movie.

Another thing I love about this movie is that it is the total anti-low budget movie.  It is the complete opposite of everything about low budget film making today.  It doesn't rely on interpretation of imagery as an excuse for story telling nor does it use abstract or fractured story telling as an excuse for being lazy.  Instead Mud uses the old fashioned was of story telling - establishing good characters and making the audience care about them and their life and presents all of this is a straight forward story.  This is so against what normal low budget film making has become today, which more or less has become an excuse for pushing boundaries for the sake of pushing boundaries.  Like Seinfeld low budget film making has become an industry producing movies about nothing, but like anything "arty" this nothing they produce gets hailed as genre breaking or some kind of commentary on something or another.  This is simply what low budget film making has become, as the writers and directors seem to use every excuse in the book to not actually tell a story but instead deconstruct everything about story telling until the actual story becomes lost in their pretentiousness.  Mud, as I said above and will reiterate again, is the complete opposite of all that low budget film making has become and it is all the better for it.  If more low budget film making would follow the model of Mud, I think low budget film making would have a sort of renaissance with the audience and the money would follow. 

This is also a perfectly cast movie, down to every actor who utters a word of dialogue and I do mean every actor who has any line in this movie.  But it's the three main stars of the movie that really help to pace and propel the storyline home.  They provide the heart and soul of the movie, through their conviction to their characters and dedication to their roles, they help to breath life into every scene and make this fictional story and world come alive.  The young actor, Tye Sheridan, who plays the main character, Ellis, plays him to perfection.  Ultimately it's his story we get to follow as this boy journeys from innocence to experience and Sheridan does a wonderful job of portraying Ellis' character development.  It's the quiet scenes where he really shines as his facial expressions and subtle way he squints his eyes that really help to show what's going on inside of him.  Jacob Lofland, who plays Ellis' best friend Neckbone (one of the best names for a character in a movie in a long time), doesn't have the in depth role of Sheridan.  But Lofland plays Neckbone with a street smart intellect and sly sense of humor that makes him stand out, despite not being as fully drawn out as Ellis.  Matthew McConaughey plays one of his best roles in years and is simply magnetic to the camera when he is on screen as he plays, more or less, a secondary character.  But his character is the fulcrum to which all of the movie hinges, even when he is not on screen his presence is still there, much like Brandon and his Godfather role.

Lastly, the director's choice to use as many on location shootings as he did, only added to full effect of creating a world unlike most people get to see on screen.  The Arkansas rivers, islands, and forest become a central character in this movie, a living breathing character that added much life and energy in every scene.  This movie reminded me a lot of how John Boorman used the location shooting in Deliverance to full effect, the same can be said of Mud.  There is a subtle invocation of nature taking over, no where near the same effect as Deliverance used it, but the fact I could make the connection means this theme is lurking around Mud.  And to be truthful that isn't a bad thing whatsoever, in fact, I think it only adds to the lure of Mud and makes it a better movie. 

Glory Road

Glory Road directed by Jams Gartner starring Josh Lucas, Derek Luke, and Jon Voight.

This is a true story about coach Don Haskins, of Texas Western, in El Paso, who was the first coach to start an all black line up in the NCAA tournament and have more than one black player start during the regular season of NCAA basketball.  This movie is produced by Jerry Bruckheimer.  Everything that is associated with his name goes along with this movie - minus the huge budget and wild action scenes.  But if you've seen Remember the Titans, also produced by Jerry Bruckhemier, than you know exactly what kind of movie you're in for, because subtlety and character development have never been a trait associated with Bruckheimer.  He's more known for the in-your-face, sludge hammer approach to story telling that leaves little room for interpretation and works more like a color by the numbers or connect the dots, type of movie.

Everything a person can expect from a racially motivated story is here in a full down pour of display that is the hurricane called Bruckheimer.  The white players and black players have their moment of dispute as they try to put each other in their place.  You've got your old assistant coach who is just around to throw out words of wisdom every now-and-then or make some comical comment.  You've got your many shots of a coach in shock and surprise that his team is getting beat by a bunch of "negro" ball players.  You've got a few scenes with the board of the school as they question Don Haskins of recruiting so many black players, which ultimately amount to nothing but to show there was a race problem at the higher levels of the school, but these scenes don't really go anywhere as they just seem to emphasize there was a racial problem.  You've got your scenes where black players impart some of their culture to the white players.  Just like every sports movies every made, you've got that one scene of, "If you quit now, you're going to keep quitting for the rest of your life," speech.  You've got the scene where Don Haskins' wife is in a room full of other women and over hears them talking about "that coach" playing all of those "negro" players, then she is asked some question, said question doesn't matter, her response is all the sledge hammer approach needed for her to say she is the wife of "that coach".  I could keep going on and on and on as every cliche from every sports movie and racial motivated movies is here in full display, no stone is left unturned.

This is all sad because this story is an interesting story and Josh Lucas does a good job with what little they've given him to do.  I can only imagine what he could have done with a better script.  He should have been the main focus of the movie, his relationship with the players, his relationship with wife, and his relationship with board I think would have been a much better focus on character development and helped the movie to be better.  Granted it would have been more like Hoosiers, but is that a bad thing?  I don't think so because a focused story is much better than a story built on and with cliches, while starring cliches.  What made Don Haskins want to be that radical in starting and recruiting that many black players, especially in a southern school?  His motivations and a willingness to explore why he did this would make a fascinating movie but sadly Bruckheimer is more concerned about the cliches associated with the sports and racial movie.  Everything here seems force fed to the audience, instead of letting everything flow a character and story standpoint, which is a much better way approach these racial issues.  And as with any sports movie there will always be cliches because sports are always growing all sorts of cliches, that can never be helped, but if there are good characters and a story, cliches won't matter.  See Hoosiers, The Fighter, Warrior, and Rocky for good examples of how to do a cliche sports movie. 

Trance

Trance directed by Danny Boyle starring James McAvoy, Vincent Cassel, and Rosario Dawson.

There is really only a couple of reasons to see this film.

One: if you're a Danny Boyle fan.  I sort of am, which is the main reason I wanted to see it.  I'm not a huge fan of his, but a couple of his movies over the last few years have been way better than anything the Hollywood factory has churned out -  28 Days Later, Sunshine, Slumdog Millionaire, and 127 Hours.  So needless to say when a movie of his comes out, I'm mildly interested in seeing it.  And his direction for this movie matched the output of his for the last few years but the only that really failed him for this movie was the story line, which I will get to in a little bit.

Two: if your a fan of either James McAvoy, Rosario Dawson, or Vincent Cassel, then you should see this film.  Out of those three actors, James McAvoy is the other reason I was interested in seeing this movie.  He's one of the better young actors coming out of Hollywood that Hollywood isn't force feeding down our throats.  Plus, he's Scottish and by now you should know my thoughts on English, Scottish, and European actors, which is, they are hands down some of the best in the world.  Way better than the vast majority of American feed Hollywood actors.  But let me tell you each of these actors really helped to make this movie's story line flow along at a better pace than it normally would have had, I believe.

Third and final point: if your a fan of twisty, turning story lines that keep twisting and turning throughout, then this is the movie for you.  Now, I won't say I'm a  huge fan of twisty turning story lines because normally those types of story lines get too focused on the twisting and turning that they forget about character development and the actual story line.  The twists and turns is what they become all about.  It is their gimmick, their hook, and they have nothing else.  After saying that some movies do this way better than others, Chinatown, Sixth Sense, and The Usual Suspects come to mind the quickest, with Chinatown being the one movie that really gut punches the viewer at the end and leaves them wishing for the typical Hollywood ending.  And I'm not kidding about that either.  These movies didn't worry about the twisting or turning going on in their movie instead they focused on character and story line and let the twisting and turning happen as they normally would. 

Now to the movie Trance.  Trance's big hook on the twisty, turning department is that one of the main elements of the movie revolves around hypnosis and that hypnosis really works.  Now immediately for me this brings up all sorts of warning lights, detour signs, and caution tape because once someone goes under hypnosis in the movie I'm just waiting for the revelation to come that not matter what is happening on screen that person is still under hypnosis, even if they just came out of it.  This is as serious problem with these kinds of movie because it puts an unfair burden on the storyline.  What I mean by this is that the audience can't sit back and enjoy what is going on, they become so focused on the already premeditated twists and turns brought on by the hypnosis that the story line quickly becomes lost.  Just watch any M. Night Shyamalan movies post Sixth Sense for proof of what I'm talking about.  All of his movies after Sixth Sense were so focused on the twist or big reveal at the ending that no one could sit back and enjoy the movie.  But even Shyamalan became so caught up in the twists and turns that he forgot one of the main reasons Sixth Sense was so good, it was not because of the twist at the end.  It was because of the characters.  They were the main reason the movie caught on so well.  He made the audience care about the characters and let the twisting and turning happen as they would, but all of his movies after sacrificed character and story for twists and turns.  Trance does this same thing by the introduction of hypnosis in the story line.  I don't think there's any way around this but that is just the unfair burden hypnosis puts on the story line.

The one thing Trance does well that I really liked was that as the movie starts to wrap up some of characters have some dramatic personality changes without it being a gimmick or feeling really badly contrived.  One the contrary it worked brilliantly and helped the movie take a dramatic twisty turn that was more earned and heartfelt than the twisty turning of the hypnosis.  In my opinion this was one of the best things about this movie and I won't say anything further to spoil the movie.  But if you're up for watching an good movie that will entertain you, this movie will do.

Now You See Me

Now You See Me directed by Louis Leterrier starring Morgan Freeman, Woody Harrison, Mark Ruffalo, Jesse Eisenberg, Isla Fisher, Dave Franco, and Michael Cain.

This is by no means a great movie but it is however very entertaining and the pacing of the movie zips by in quick steps.  This is also one of those movies that dove tails away from any form of characterization or character development but is more concerned with how bright and smart it thinks it is.  Truthfully it's not as smart or brilliant as it thinks it is, which is fine because the true stars of this movie are the cast.  They make this film work in ways the writer and director never would have thought possible.  They are the ones who bring zip and zang to the characters.  They are ones that make the scenes come together, when they are on screen together.  It is them that makes this film work, without them this would be a lifeless film surfing the waves of intellect it thinks it has.

I've always said good character actors are much better than over paid actors and I would hire them in a heart beat instead of the actors that seem content to hog 40-50% of a films budget.  This film just proves that fact in about every scene these actors are in.  These are not actors that demand huge amounts of money to be in a film but these are actors who can actually act and command screen time when they are in a scene.  Don't get me wrong there is an actual story here about magicians, over-the-top set pieces (that are really over-the-top but don't feel forced in my opinion, as they seem comfortably rested among the actors), and some kind of hidden magician club that the story line only seems concerned with as the movie starts to wind up.

But ultimately who cares?  The cast is the reason to see this movie.  Woody Harrison is as funny as ever.  When you pair him with Jesse Eisenberg, you kind of a sort of sequel to Zombieland.  Eisenberg seems content to keep doing riffs on his Social Network role and Zombieland role, which is fine with me because he does it so well and for some reason I don't mind.  Morgan Freeman does what he always does making any film he's in better just by him being in it.  Isla Fisher is as hot as ever, not coming anywhere near her scene stealing self in Wedding Crashers, but then again who cares because she's hot.  Michale Cain, is well Michael Cain, he just gets better with age and as Hollywood seems so content to forcing these young actors on the public, having Cain and Freeman in a the same movie only proves how helpless these new actors are.  They suck.  I think the stand out person in the movie is Mark Ruffalo who, in my opinion, steals the movie as all of my sympathy was swayed towards him and Ruffalo only helped this by just being a good actor.  He seems to only get better as the years gone on in everything I see him.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again, his Bruce Banner was amazing in the Avengers as he matched every scene he was in with Robert Downey, Jr's Tony Stark and he didn't have the insane awesome one liners to fall back on.

Well that's about it, watch it for the actors and be a little amused by the somewhat story line.

Insomnia

Insomnia directed by Christopher Nolan, starring Al Pacino, Robin Williams, and Hillary Swank.

I wanted to go back and revisit some of Christopher Nolan movies that I had seen when they came out, but now with a better perspective on the director he's become.  I wanted to start here, with Insomnia.  I originally saw this movie when it first came out in 2002 and liked it.  I didn't think the movie was great but I still found it highly entertaining.  Seeing it now?  I still don't think the movie is great but it's much better than just highly entertaining and is much better than the majority of crap Hollywood keeps churning out and other directors keep making.  One thing I was amazed about was that, despite being 11 years old, this movie holds up remarkably well over time.  It still seemed as if this movie had been made this year, that is always a good sign of a director - that is their movies age extremely well and don't ever feel real dated.  I will explain this more later on.

I noticed a lot of traits from this movie that Nolan hasn't compromised over time and has helped to shape him into the director he's become today.  One is his ability to cast people in the right roles and to get the maximum effort and energy out of them for that role.  With just using Insomnia as an example the casting for this movie is pitch perfect as Nolan is one of the few directors to get toned down and subtle performances from Al Pacino and Robin Williams.  This is one of the few movies I've seen where Pacino isn't shouting but seems more resolved to actually give a performance based around quietness, that herald's back to his acting of the 70's, which is something I've missed from Pacino's career for a long time.  Even Williams gives one of his best performances in a long time that is no way over the top or loud, but is one of measured tone and so unlike his Good Will Hunting performance, which still managed to be one of his best performances but had traces of Robin Williams the comedian in it.  Not so with Insomnia, as Williams does some of his best acting and the couple of scenes with him and Pacino together sparkle and crackle with some serious energy.  Then to top off everything, the young acting talent that is Hillary Swank walks in and continues to dazzle as one of the best female actresses to come around in a long time.  She basically takes a secondary role in the movie but runs away with it as she pours herself into it and makes the part come alive.  There are so many bit parts in this movie that are perfectly cast from Pacino's partner, who at first I thought didn't fit too well but then when he dies I realized how much I missed him, to the chief of police of the small Alaska town, to dead girl's best friend, and the hotel manger.  All are perfectly cast, which is a trait of Nolan that has made him one of the best in Hollywood.

Now there are a couple of things Nolan does well that I think helps to give his movies a timeless quality to them, which then in return makes them not feel outdated.  One is his ability to not only create the world the people live in, but to make that world a character, by doing this he opens the movie up in way that helps it connect to the audience and seem real.  In the Batman movies the city of Gotham didn't for once feel like it was built on a sound stage, even when the movie went outside of Gotham the world presented there felt real.  The world of The Prestige, that time period came alive with the setting, costumes, and period detail, it wasn't just part of the movie but became a character in the movie.  Even Inception, even though it didn't have a primary location but every location or set piece that was introduced had a presence and became a character in that scene.  Insomnia is the same way, as the Alaska town becomes a character as well as the constant light from it's never setting sun, which is kind of ironic as all the characters are trying to find or hide from the darkness but are constantly surrounded by the ever present light.  The Alaskan small town here just seems very real and fits into it's character well. 

The other thing Nolan does that helps his movies to not feel outdated - is that the man can direct.  His camera placement, camera movements, cuts, edits, and pacing are some of the best in Hollywood and gives his films a timeless quality.  His films don't just look good, they are an example of everything that needs to be in a movie to make it a good and the public have voted with their money on how good his films, which is normally a good indication of how good a movie is.  Sometimes this "voting" process doesn't work, but for the most part is does work and not a process is Hollywood fully likes, either but it's one that can actually be counted. 

Pain and Gain

Pain & Gain directed b Micheal Bay, starring Mark Wahlberg, Dwayne Johnson, Anthony Mackie, Ed Harris, Tony Shalhoub, and a bunch of half naked women, just like any other Michael Bay film, and I bet they're all some sort of Vitoria Secret models or have had some desire to be a Victoria Secret model.

Honestly, this is Micheal Bay's most mature movie that he's directed.  It's not full of explosions, car chases, guns a blazing, or the most over-the-top action scenes Bay is known for.  For a Bay film, this is a quiet, subdued movie and more a satire than anything else.  Yes, I did use that word satire, a word not normally associated with a Bay production.  Even after saying all of that this is not his best film, I still The Rock is his best over all film.  I don't know where I'd put this movie on his filmography, personally I would put it in his top 3 or top 2, not that that's saying much considering his output of movies tend to be overly crazy anyhow with little focus on anything but action and explosions, because we all know Bay hasn't met an explosion he didn't like.  But then again I don't know how anyone can go into a Bay movie now and not know what to expect. Even going into this movie knowing how a Bay movie is directed and presented, I can honestly say this movie is quite opposite from everything he's directed before.

At times it almost plays out like a modern day A Clockwork Orange only it is by no means as focused a movie A Clockwork Orange, which is the movie's one downfall, a lack of focus narrative-wise.  What this movie lacks for a normal Bay direction, the screenplay seems to make up for it as the narrative and focus of the story is all over the place, much like how Bay's direction normally is.  Personally, I think the out of focus screenplay hurts the movie the most.  Bay's direction is at times truly inspired, with some great shots and camera placements and he doesn't give into the temptation to go all crazy with the editing and hyper attention deficit disorder.  Instead, for the most part, he lets his camera weave through the story with a grace and ease not normally associated with Bay.  There are only a few times throughout the film I think he let his former hyper self take control of the movie, but patience seems to be primarily on his palate this time around.  He needs to do more of these kinds of movies because I think he's really great at it.

It's a shame about the screenplay because there is a sharp, biting, satire full of irony lurking within this movie.  If it had stayed more focused, it would have been that much more powerful.  Instead from a narrative point of view, this movie is all over the place with six different people interjecting their point of view into story, essentially giving the movie six main characters, which is never a good thing.  The movie should have stayed focused on Mark Wahlberg's character and let his philosophy and character carry the film to it's ironic and satirical glory.  Wahlberg has the charisma and acting chops to do that, even in this film he does a great job of presenting the story line and narrative focus.  He also gets some great back up from Dwayne  Johnson and Anthony Mackie.

The irony is ripe for the picking.  We have here a movie about body builders, who go through all sorts of pain to gain for their muscle mass.  This is contrasted with Tony Shalhoub character, an essentially weakling when compared to the other three characters, who went through all kinds of pain to gain his mass of wealth.  The pursuit of the American dream is mentioned a few times throughout the film and the word pursuit is the main focus, as the word pursuit means pain to gain for the American dream.  The irony being these body builders want to bypass this pain part of the American dream and steal what they can from the guy who actually pained to get his wealth.  One of the things this screenplay did right was let Tony Shalhoub's character, who is an ass, continue to be an ass as the movie plays out.  This is a brave thing they did as he is the sympathetic character and I did feel sorry him as Walhberg, Johnson, and Mackie's characters exploited him throughout this story.  But as I was saying all of this satire and irony become lost in a screenplay that wants to say too much instead of realizing that less is more.

Finally, I wonder if this movie is some kind of reflection on Bay about his life or movie career?  Because he really wanted to make this movie and pursued it very ravenously.  One could say he went through much pain to get this movie made (his gain).  Even as I think about this it makes perfect sense because Bay's career as a film maker is one of total excess, much like the body builder's in this movie but yet the movie doesn't side with them.

Primer

Primer written and directed by Shane Carruth, starring Shane Carruth and David Sullivan.

This is one of the best low budget movies I've ever seen that is totally devoid of any special effects or over the top budgets but instead relies heavily on character and story line.  It's all the better for it.  This is also a movie that will reward repeat viewing because the storyline is one long Mobius Strip as it focuses on time travel, doppelgangers, and character, then by the end of the movie everything starts to fold in on itself.  Not in a gimmicky sort of way either but in a way that relates the characters and storyline.  It's a smart film that doesn't for one second treat the viewer as stupid and wholeheartedly encourages the viewer to pay attention to what is going on.  This movie is in the same vain as the other low budget movie about time travel Safety not Guaranteed, only Primer is much more focused on the science and technology of time travel but not so focused that the characters become lost in the story.  

There's a lot of talking in this movie and the movie cleverly builds upon itself with the layered dialogue as the two main characters explain what they've discovered. I'll admit I didn't fully understand everything they were talking about but I understood enough that I was intrigued with the science behind what they had discovered.  And as their discovery builds upon itself - much like the dialogue does - I became more and more intrigued into what was happening.  I also like how the characters in the movie use time travel to become rich and help to further their lives financially, which really helps to make them relate able, as they act like normal people would if they could time travel. 

This movie is a great example for low budget film making and if every other film maker out there - making low budget films - would actually focus on character and storyline, I think the low budget movies could over take the big budget movies easily.  The main reason is that they would be financially viable to make when their budget is weighed against the profits they bring in.  But sadly low budget film making seems more focused on preaching instead of a story line, pretentiousness over a theme, cliches over character, political statements instead of story line, imagery and interpretation instead of standard plotting, gimmicky editing and camera movies instead of actually directing.  Everything Shane Carruth has done here is truly amazing and this movie needs to be seen not just for him breaking expectations of low budget film making but for making a good movie, which is something low budget films seems more destined to do.

Gone with the Wind (book)

Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell.

I think all writers have this dilemma inside of them.  Do I want to write multiple books without being that well known, but be known enough to make a decent living at writing or would I rather write one great book and be known only for that great book?  It's a good dilemma to contemplate.  Margret Mitchell chose the later one.  And what a great book she has written to be remembered by, as she sits next to a few famous one book writers: Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird; J. D. Salinger, Catcher in the Rye; John Kennedy Toole, A Confederacy of Dunces; Emily Bronte, Wuthering Heights.  What a list of writers to be associated with it.  And what a great novel to be remembered by and one that has and will continue to stand the test of time.

Ultimately this book is classified as a romance novel.  But I would add on to that classification: world building, historical novel, historical romance, social commentary, and a psychological novel. 

Primarily it is a psychological novel as it explores everything that makes the main character Scarlett who she it.  This character development is some of the best I've ever read in any book.  The main reason this is, is because Scarlett's character isn't a very likable character.  She's manipulative from the first time we see her and this continues all the way through the book as she continuously manipulates situations to her advantage all the time.  She neglects her children for personal gain or purely for pleasure.  She's a back biter.  She's a liar.  She shallow.  She's selfish.  But Mitchell does something with Scarlett I haven't seen done in many books.  She fully explains all of Scarlett's actions so much so that I understand all her motivations for everything she did.  By doing this Mitchell creates a very sympathetic character despite how "evil" a person Scarlett can be at times.  This aspect of the novel I found truly mesmerizing as I was in no way expecting so in depth psychology I found myself into while I saw Scarlett grow from a teenage girl into a fully fledged woman by the end of the book.  I think it's this growth that really separates Scarlett from other characters because she's sixteen when the book starts and is close to thirty or about half way through twenty when the book ends.  A lot of her actions and judgements can clearly be seen as youthful decisions, affected only by age and experience.  But as she gets older her character and decisions become more affected by her experience, as they would to any person so the ending of the book is quite appropriate as the reader knows Scarlett has finally changed and will be a different person than they first met her.   

Normally the term world building is reserved for fantasy and sci-fi.  But I would use it for this book as well as the world Mitchell creates is thriving with life as she populates Scarlett's world with a rich and deep history.  This history is fully detailed and helps to give it a full sense of genuineness without a trace of falseness.  The country side, the plantations, the people in this book all seem so real as if Mitchell has used real historical figures to surround Scarlett with.  I know some of the people and situations in the book are historically accurate, even these historical settings only help to add the story being told as they give the reader some context and immediacy to what is happening around Scarlett.  I would put this world building on par with George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series.  It is that good and this from essentially a romance novel.

I think one book I would compare Gone with the Wind to is Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice and this is in now way a bad thing and I mean it as a complete compliment.  The similarities are quite staggering.  I noticed them a lot as I was reading this book.  One of the things Mitchell does with the story of Scarlett and Rhett Butler is comment on the societal ideology and the mind set that had planted itself into the culture of that day.  Jane Austen did as much with her novels as she used her characters to explore the same type of things Mitchell did with her characters.  Mitchell comments on how women were thought of and treated, as Scarlett goes against many of the "normal" associations attached to being a woman of that time period.  She also uses Butler character to rethink how men and especially the gentlemen were thought of at those times.  Everything then was done in secret and behind closed doors, but with Scarlett and Butler, Mitchell brings things to the surface as those two characters decided to confront things head on and not behind closed doors.  She really exposes the hypocrisies that were running rampant through society.   Mitchell also explores a different side of the Civil War, one that isn't talked about much in the history books, and that is showing how the Civil War affected the people of the South.  She presents their perspective of the war from a fresh angle that no one talks about and shows how any war destroys everything it touches for the winners and the losers, with the end result being there are no real winners in the place immediately affected by the war, only losers.

Another way Gone with the Wind is like Pride and Prejudice is in the relationship with Scarlett and Rhett as it mirrored the relationship of Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy.  In much the same way every time Elizabeth and Darcy were together on the page the story moved a little quicker and with a faster pace than previously.  It was the same way with Gone with the Wind, when Scarlett and Rhett were together on the page, the story and pace moved quicker and with more energy than before.  This is an interesting thing because I was genuinely looking forward to any scene and every scene with those two characters in both novels.  I wanted and desired those scenes and when those scenes came, they met every expectation.

This is one of the best best books I've read in a long time and holds up remarkable well with the classic status it's risen to over the years.  It's more than worth the time to read and well worth the time to read.  I highly recommend this book to read.