Erin's Movie Musings

Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen

2009-07-03T01:43:00.001-04:00

In a Nutshell: Robots pretty! The rest? Eh. Go in with low expectations, and you might be okay.

Quick Plot: What plot? An ancient robot seeks an equally ancient power source that is hidden on Earth, to the detriment of all planetary inhabitants.

In Detail: Um, that's really about it. Most of the story development of this film could fit in a haiku or two. As another very pithy reviewer put it: not much more than meets the CGI. (That reviewer's full remarks at http://bit.ly/JtvQ0 and it is too funny. DH fully agrees with him, more than he agrees with me.) Don't get me wrong, the CGI is awesome. If you have any inclination to see it, do see it on the big screen. Well, when you can actually see it. Why they spend all this money on the robots and then *not* pull the camera back so you can actually see what's going on is beyond me. I thought it was just blah. DH thought it was terrible, though I do think he's a little more emotionally invested in Transformers (in general, not necessarily Michael Bay's incarnation) than I am. We both agreed that it committed the cardinal sin of any major action blockbuster: it was boring. Not sure how that is even possible, but it was. And I'm not one who is a stickler for location accuracy, but I am pretty darned sure that there is not a desert with distant rocky mountains out the back door of the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, not even the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center. Looked a whole lot more like Arizona (where it was filmed), which I am quite sure is nothing even remotely like Washington, DC. Just one glaring example of the many many things that were very wrong with the film.

Will I Buy It? I genuinely do not know. Pretty sure we're both leaning towards no. I don't particularly want to see it again, and I know DH doesn't either. We'll have to discuss it.

A Knight's Tale

2009-07-03T01:41:00.001-04:00

In a Nutshell: Cute, fun, not deep, and Heath Ledger. A perfectly brainless movie, which is just what I wanted at the time.

Quick Plot: Only those of noble birth may be a knight, and only knights may compete in tournaments, but a young peasant squire decides to change the stars and compete anyway.

In Detail: I have had several people tell me over the years that they thought I would enjoy this movie, and I did. There wasn't much to it, which was to be expected. Historical accuracy is neither its forte nor its purpose. One of the most memorable features about the film was the anachronistic music, which I actually thought was pretty fun (knowing it was coming in advance). I did find the love story, in particular, especially lacking, though. No chemistry there at all, IMO, and certainly no depth (not that I wanted Romeo and Juliet, but something deeper than a puddle would have been nice). It was great fun to see a certain actor featuring prominently, even if the red hair was distracting (we know him as a blond). I won't ruin it by saying who, but it made us bust out laughing. A fine fluff film, worth seeing once if you like knights and/or Heath Ledger.

Will I Buy It? No. It was fun once, but I don't think we would watch it a lot. It was a little too light on plot for that. For light and fun period film with Heath Ledger, I prefer Casanova.

Night at the Museum

2009-07-03T01:40:00.000-04:00

In a Nutshell: It was just there. Not good, not bad, just eh.

Quick Plot: In order to pay his rent and keep seeing his son, a man takes a job as night watchman at the Natural History Museum, which takes on a life of its own (quite literally) after dark.

In Detail: I don't really have a lot to say about this one. We're not big Ben Stiller fans to start with, though this was a straighter roll for him than average (probably because he had to keep it PG). The main reason we saw this one at all is because we are looking for a good movie to take Luke to his summer. Up didn't really pan out for him, and I'm afraid Ice Age 3 isn't going to be worth seeing (the second one certainly wasn't). Several people had suggested this one as a possibility (the sequel is currently showing), but we wanted to check it out first. There were a few objectionable things (the monkey peeing for absolutely no reason; I *hate* that kind of thing), but overall, I just found it blah. We barely smiled, we never laughed. It was sweet, but that's not enough for me. I can't find any reason not to recommend it, but I can't find any reason to recommend it either. ::shrug::

Will I Buy It? No.

Up

2009-06-12T20:49:00.001-04:00

In a Nutshell: As with most recent Pixar films, I liked it a lot, but I didn't love it. Hopefully, as with most Pixar films, it will grow on me with repeat viewings. We did not see it in 3-D, so I can't speak to that aspect.

Quick Plot: As a child, Carl always wanted to be an adventurer. Now a widower, he keeps a promise to his wife to visit South America. The former balloon salesman takes his house up, up, and away, and he settles in for the ride. A knock at the door, in mid-air, reveals an unexpected passenger on his journey, a young Wilderness Explorer named Russell.

In Detail: I have been sitting on this review for 2 weeks now. We actually saw it opening day, but I still really don't know what to say about this movie. Even DH said to me as we were leaving, "I don't envy you having to write that review!" I think I am going to have a recurring problem with movies like this, though. I was so intent on watching it to see if it would be good for our son (now age 4.5) that it is hard for me to enjoy the film on its own merits. (I had the same problem with WALL-E last year.) It was a good movie, and we enjoyed it. I cried twice, so how bad could it be? It was very sweet, very touching in places, and just a feast for the eyes (as usual for Pixar). The sunlight coming through the balloons and casting colored shadows on the ground was just stunning. As far as characters go, Dug is priceless. (Squirrel!) We really did like it. But I can also tell you that we will not be taking our son. In general, I think it is fine for kids around his age, but he is *very* sensitive to animal violence. There is no blood or anything that I recall, but some dogs fighting each other and they were pretty menacing to the main characters. For my child in particular, even though it turns out okay with the dogs in the end, I think the dogs would scare him, especially in the theater on that huge screen. At home on a smaller screen and in a secure environment, I think he'll be okay, but we won't be taking him to the theater for this one. I do think that is a big reason why I am slightly disappointed with the movie, because I so wanted to take him to see it. That's not the movie's fault! It's just hard for me to separate the two. So, good movie, probably better than I think it is right now, and you should definitely see it. (No coda, BTW.)

Will I Buy It? Yes. It was good, and we love Pixar, and I'm sure it will grow on us like the others have.

Star Trek (2009)

2009-05-15T21:08:00.001-04:00

In a Nutshell: Loved it. Accept it for what it is, and see it. May not be awesome Trek, but it is an awesome movie!

Quick Plot: Um, well, see, I really can't tell you because most anything about the plot is a spoiler. How about this: a group of seemingly familiar cadets save Starfleet from a crazed man seeking revenge. That's about the best I can offer you.

In Detail: As a summer popcorn action flick, I truly loved it. Other than one picky science bit at the end, I was totally engrossed. As a Star Trek film, I am less certain. I think almost all of the actors did a great job with at least embodying the essence of their predecessors. I will single out Karl Urban for being the most spot on with really working to capture the speech patterns and mannerisms of the late DeForest Kelley. Truly excellent! Yes, the physical resemblance of Zachary Quinto (totally love him) to Leonard Nimoy is truly uncanny (particularly in profile, wow!), but as far as making me *believe* he was Spock (as opposed to Zachary Quinto (or Sylar, though I will admit I never "saw" Sylar in his performance)), Quinto didn't always manage. Mostly, but not always. But I never for a moment doubted that Karl Urban was Bones. In the other direction, I will have to disagree with my BB friends; I did not care for the physical embodiment or the attitude of Scotty's "younger self." He just didn't seem dignified enough to be Scotty.

As for canon, I give kudos to the writers and creators for coming up with a very "trekkie" way to get around it that I feel really works within the existing Trek universe. I see it opening up innumerable possibilities for future familiar-yet-not scenarios. There were plenty of "little things" thrown in there for hard core fans as well. (Listen for the Archer reference; we missed it!) They did miss one golden opportunity to include one of the most memorable "Old Trek" lines in an appropriate place: instead of "I implied," the response should have been "I exaggerated." :-) There were two things I think should have been cut out completely, as they were totally unnecessary: the ice monsters and the water tubes. Waste of film and time, IMO. I also have some issues with Uhura in the turbolift scene, not so much with the implications of what she is doing (trying not to spoil it here), but it was just too much (too intense?) to me. I think a little less would have been better. (I can be more specific if you want to email me.) So, overall, a great summer movie! And a nice shift in the direction of Trek. I'm just afraid some of what Gene Roddenberry really wanted to demonstrate - peace and exploration in the galaxy, diplomacy, thinking through your problems instead of fighting about them - may get lost in the amped-up movie format. The most loved episodes of Trek are usually the "thinking" episodes, and I don't want that aspect of Star Trek to get lost in this new, slick, action-packed universe.

Will I Buy It? Oh yeah!

Ice Age 2: The Meltdown

2009-05-15T21:06:00.002-04:00

In a Nutshell: Very disappointing. Not enough effort at plot, too many unrelated (and unimportant) gags.

Quick Plot: The glaciers are melting. Those who live in the area must flee the impending flood, and everyone's favorite mismatched herd picks up a few new wacky members along the way.

In Detail: First, let me say upfront that the original Ice Age falls into a very rare and special category for us: movies that were much better than we expected them to be. We were not expecting much at all from when we went to see it in the theater. We thought it would be rather ho-hum, in fact (you know, back before the child when we had the time to see "just okay" movies). So the fact that we so thoroughly enjoyed it probably put its sequel at a disadvantage. I had heard from several sources that it was disappointing, so I didn't have my hopes up too much, or so I thought. Even with lowered expectations, we were still disappointed. It reminds me of a quote from Bolt: "I was, like, 'What?' And then I was, like, 'Huh?' And then, well, I got a little bored." That pretty much sums it up. Too many "asides," too much potty humor or "almost cursing," too much that the first movie managed to successfully avoid, all wrapped up with not enough plot or even effort at having a plot. I never realized how much the baby held the first one together, and without that bond, this one just couldn't make it. It felt like a string of gags that they couldn't fit into the first one, so they tried to piece them together into a movie. I hear the next one is better (due out this summer, with dinosaurs; the child is already begging to see it). I surely hope so.

Will I Buy It? Not unless we *totally* love the next one and I feel that it is required for continuity. If we like #3, and if it can mostly stand on its own, then we'll skip purchasing Ice Age 2. If we don't like #3, we'll do like we do for The Matrix and pretend films 2 and 3 don't exist! LOL

Bolt

2009-05-15T21:03:00.001-04:00

In a Nutshell: We really enjoyed it! A little intense at the beginning, but very fun with a lot of heart. The child loved it, too.

Quick Plot: Bolt is the star of his very own television show as a dog with super powers. The problem is, he thinks it is all real. When he accidentally ends up out in the real world and on the other side of the USA, his "powers" aren't working. How will he ever get back home to his person?

In Detail: This movie was just so much fun. When we found ourselves still chuckling about more than one scene several days later, we knew we would end up buying it when it was released for home viewing. The gags are funny (it's styrofoam! LOL), the banter is hilarious (Rhino in particular), but the story doesn't get lost, and the emotion is there as well. Just really well done. That's not to say that it's not predictable, but hey, it's a Disney; that comes with the territory. I actually don't mind predictable most of the time. We took the child to see it (age 4) at the theater as well. I will say that the opening sequence is a little intense (and a little long at such intensity for very young children, IMO), so you may want to preview it for the little ones. But L was riveted, and it is now one of his most favorite films.

Will I Buy It? Already did, on Blu-ray, no less!

The Dark Knight

2008-07-21T21:23:00.001-04:00

In a Nutshell: Didn't live up to the hype, but then again, no film could. Generally good, with moments of greatness. Dark for sure, but should have been darker, IMHO.

Quick Plot: Batman has the common criminals running scared, and there's a new DA in town determined to keep hold of the newly gained ground. But the common criminals turn to an uncommon man, The Joker, a self-admitted agent of anarchy, to take down Gotham's protective dark knight, and much of the city burns in their wake.

In Detail: Good, just not as good as I'd hoped. It had moments of brilliance, no doubt about it, and it is a good movie, just not a great one. First off, it was too long by a good 20 minutes at least, which made the first hour or so drag quite a bit. And I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I think it should have been darker. If you're going to go there, then GO there! Don't take huge strides toward the line, then stop just short. I understand they need this movie to be a commercial success (that $180M US budget is looming large), and I understand that they wanted the movie to be rated PG-13, which I don't think could have been managed with a movie much darker than this one. But there was at least one scene in particular, and perhaps a couple more, that did not pack the punch it could have in terms of suspense and/or emotional tension, simply because I *knew* they weren't going to carry through due to the PG-13 rating (if they had, I swear to you, I'd have fallen out of my seat).

I also think they tried to cram too much in there (see too long comment). I *really* think they should have let the Joker and Two Face each have their own film. Introduce Harvey Dent, fine, but save his arc for a separate movie. That would have allowed for a shorter, tighter story this time around, and yet still allowed for more Bruce Wayne (lots of Batman, but not much Bruce this time; shame to hide Christian Bale behind the mask and suit and voice for the whole film) and more Joker. And believe me, more Joker would have been a good thing. Heath Ledger is just as amazing as everyone said; you simply cannot take your eyes off him when he's on screen, and you can't wait for him to reappear when he's off camera. The make-up, the voice, the phrasing, the sheer presence, and the overlying melancholy of knowing that this brilliant man will never be seen on film again in a fully completed performance. It makes him all the more riveting. Ledger alone is reason enough to see it, so do rent it if you don't make it to the theater. And FYI, no coda (thanks Melissa!).

Will I Buy It? I don't know. Will have to discus with the spouse. Personally, I think I need to see it again just to fully appreciate such a fabulous performance by Heath Ledger. But after that, I don't see myself watching this movie over and over. I'll think about it.

Enchanted

2008-07-21T21:20:00.000-04:00

In a Nutshell: Very cute, very sweet, quite funny, perfectly cast. Definitely worth seeing.

Quick Plot: The evil queen of an animated fairy tale kingdom decides to get rid of her rival for the throne by transporting her to the real world. How does such a sweet naive girl manage in modern day New York? Remarkably well, as it turns out.

In Detail: This was such a cute movie. It takes classic Disney archetypes and shows how ridiculous they can seem when compared to reality, sometimes with hilarious results. But it also emphasizes why having those archetypes at all can be important. And it definitely shows that Disney has a sense of humor about itself! The scene with the chipmunk trying to tell the Prince what was going on had both of us just dying. BTW, for anyone trying to figure out why the Prince looks familiar but can't place him, he's Scott/Cyclops (Jean's boyfriend with the laser eyes) from X-Men. Yes really! Speaking of which, all of the casting was simply perfection. I don't think they could have done a better job with any of the parts. One extra bit of casting trivia: The receptionist at the law firm, who has to watch Giselle during Patrick Dempsey's meeting, is Jodi Benson. Think you don't know who that is? Of course you do; she's the voice of The Little Mermaid! Anyway, I really did like this movie, more than DH, that's for sure. He liked it okay; I certainly enjoyed it more than he did. Which actually brings me to my primary criticism: it is definitely a girl movie (little girls and big girls). I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just something you should be aware of. Not much in there for boys, young or old. Still, definitely worth seeing if you're a Disney fan. And huge kudos to Alan Menken (and Stephen Schwartz) for doing such amazing work, as always. You'll be humming the music for weeks. And just so everyone who has seen the movie hates me equally: "How do you know that she loves you?" Feel the calypso beat! That song is almost as bad as It's a Small World.

Will I Buy It? Not sure. As I said, not much there for boys, so I'm not sure how much we'd watch it. But do see it!

Addendum: Every once in a while, a rare film comes along that I originally said I would not buy, and I change my mind. This is one of those. The more we watch this movie, the more we fall in love with it. It is now one of our favorites, and even the child likes it. We haven't bought it yet, but I promise you, we will.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith

2008-07-21T21:17:00.000-04:00

In a Nutshell: Quite a fun way to fill a boring weekend. Not deep, not serious, not boring; good but not great.

Quick Plot: John and Jane Smith have been married for five years (six!), and things have gotten stale. He goes to work at a contracting company, and she is CEO of an IT company; dinner is always at 7. But it's all a lie. They're actually competing contract killers, and things begin to quickly unravel when they are assigned the same mark.

In Detail: Not a lot of detail to give, actually. A totally disposable movie. You enjoy it in the moment, but it is pretty forgettable once the credits roll (no coda, BTW). Fun to see Brangelina before they were a couple (or so they say; the chemistry is unmistakable), though it is a total waste of their talents. That said, everyone should do something fun and frivolous from time to time, be that starring in such a movie, or watching it on DVD. So indulge and enjoy, if you like this kind of movie, and don't feel guilty. It will have evaporated from your consciousness by the next morning.

Will I Buy It? I don't think so. It was fun once, but there are others of this type of silly fun films that I enjoy more.

Meet the Robinsons

2008-07-21T21:12:00.001-04:00

In a Nutshell: Disappointing. It was just all over the place. I wanted to like it, really, but I didn't.

Quick Plot: Lewis is an orphan with a passion for inventing, even if most of his contraptions never work right. But when a kid from the future shows up at the science fair, asking about a man in a bowler hat, Lewis's life is changed forever.

In Detail: I really did want to like this movie. Space ships, robots, dinosaurs, what's not to like? We're always on the lookout for new movies for the child, but they have to be movies we don't mind, in terms of both content and (infinite) repeat viewings. This is not a movie I care to see again. Not only did I find it slow and not very funny, I also found the bad guy(s) rather creepy, and I didn't appreciate some of the things I know my child would pick up. I'm actually a little surprised it was rated G. Nothing too objectionable, just lots of inappropriate name calling, IMO, something we are currently working on teaching is NOT appropriate. I know this was the first movie that John Lassiter had his hand in after Disney purchased Pixar. [Note: This is NOT a Pixar movie; it was in development at Disney Animation long before Disney bought Pixar. Lassiter then became Creative Director, with final approval of all animated films being released,
whether coming from Pixar or Disney Animation.] If this is what became of it *after* Lassiter got hold of it (I know he threw out a good chunk of what they had, calling it garbage, and made them rework it), I'm terrified of what it was like before. I just wasn't impressed at all. It wasn't a terrible movie, by any means. I just needed it to be more than it was. More humor, more heart, more fun, more.... something. I don't know what exactly it was missing, but it was missing something. It's just not for us.

Will I Buy It? No.

The Forbidden Kingdom

2008-07-13T22:00:00.001-04:00

In a Nutshell: An excuse for Jackie Chan and Jet Li to be in a movie together. Awesome fights, not much else. But you knew that already, didn't you?

Quick Plot: In ancient China, the Monkey King is imprisoned by the evil Jade Warlord. In modern day New York, a Kung Fu obsessed American teenager finds his magic staff in a pawn shop, which transports him back in time and sets him on a quest to free the Monkey King, with the help of a drunken master, a silent monk, and a vengeful girl.

In Detail: Nothing unexpected here, so don't expect too much going in. Well, that's not entirely true. It was quite unexpected to learn that Jet Li really can smile and express genuine joy. It was rather amazing to see! And he looks terrible as a blond (but that's not really unexpected, is it? LOL). The plot is pretty silly, though it does lend itself to a few chuckles here and there. No one is watching for the plot, though. You see this movie because it is the first time that Jackie Chan and Jet Li appear in a movie together, and fight each other. In this, the film does not disappoint. I do wish they had managed to find a better showcase, but they give their all to make it amazing, no matter how ridiculous the story is. Legend has it that they've been working for well over 10 years to find the right confluence of studios, scripts, and schedules that would allow them to work together, and given their current ages (Li is 45, Chan is 54), they weren't sure they could wait much longer, so they accepted this opportunity when it presented itself. It will be sad if this is the only film they get to make together, but better to have this one than none at all.

Will I Buy It? Not sure. We'll have to think about it. A good intro to kung fu films, but still not really a kids movie (it is PG-13 for good reason).

Miss Potter

2008-07-13T21:56:00.000-04:00

In a Nutshell: A perfectly pleasant little movie. Nothing at all unexpected, but I quite liked it anyway.

Quick Plot: The enchanting life story of author Beatrix Potter.

In Detail: To me, this is one of those movies that is greater than the sum of its parts, and I can't really tell you why (much in the same way that I cannot tell you why Hancock was *less* than the sum of its parts). There is absolutely nothing in the story that was a surprise, to the point that it makes me wonder if it is her story that they used as the pattern for many of Hollywood's similar stories. And yet, I really did enjoy it. The chemistry between Renee Zellweger and Ewan McGregor was unmistakable, and everyone was clearly enjoying their parts and the costumes and the sets. Just a very sweet and lovely movie. Worth watching, if you like this sort of thing.

Will I Buy It? I'm considering it. I have a few similar movies, so I'm not sure if I need another one. If we were still buying DVDs in the quantities we used to, I'd probably say yes.

Get Smart

2008-07-13T21:54:00.000-04:00

In a Nutshell: Lots and lots of smiles, if not a lot of belly laughs. Worth seeing, but I'd suggest renting.

Quick Plot: After years of trying, Maxwell Smart is finally promoted to an agent for CONTROL. With Agent 99 by his side, they work to battle the evil KAOS and save the President of the United States.

In Detail: This movie really was a good bit of fun. Nothing spectacular, and we didn't find ourselves laughing out loud too often (though two particular instances do come to mind), but it was a perfectly fun way to spend a lazy afternoon at the theater. Steve Carell and Anne Hathaway were just a delight. They clearly enjoyed each other and what they were doing, playing off each other effortlessly. I will admit that we are both huge Dwayne Johnson fans, so we were a bit disappointed that he wasn't in the movie more than he was. The gadgets were fun (and many of them are actually real, including the tooth radio), and the homages to the original television show were excellent. We couldn't help but leave the theater with big smiles on our faces; hard to ask for more than that.

Will I Buy It? Unlikely. I'm not sure we'd watch it over and over. But it is certainly worth seeing once.

Hancock

2008-07-13T21:52:00.000-04:00

In a Nutshell: Didn't like it much, but I can't really put my finger on why. Just disappointing.

Quick Plot: Hancock is a depressed drunken "superhero" who earns more ire than good will from those he helps. Then one day, he saves the life of a PR specialist (and derails an entire freight train in the process), who makes it his mission to clean up Hancock's image and change his life for the better.

In Detail: I found this movie quite frustrating. I think it is one of those that tried to be several different things, and ended up doing none of them particularly well. The premise was fine, and I found the developments in the story itself really quite interesting. It was just the execution and support for the core story that seemed to be all over the place. They needed to pick a direction and go there whole-heartedly, but they never fully committed. And only Will Smith made the movie enjoyable in some fashion. He made the character much more complex than it had to be, with many subtle shades and genuine anguish over his situation. In most other actor's hands, you wouldn't have cared for Hancock at all, but Smith makes even this very unlikable creature evoke at least a little sympathy. Too bad that wasn't enough. As I said, I can't really put my finger on exactly what I didn't like, I just didn't care for it. It was, unfortunately, much like what I expected it to be from the initial trailers. This means I must give huge props to the marketing department who managed to release a commercial for the movie that showed it to be more of a "typical Will Smith movie" and got me in the theater against my better judgment. So, kudos to their marketing department for weaseling two extra tickets from us. This will teach me to listen to my instincts from now on.

Will I Buy It? No.

WALL-E

2008-06-29T22:02:00.000-04:00

In a Nutshell: Very good movie. Liked it, but didn't love it.

Quick Plot: Humans have trashed the Earth, to the point that they had to leave while a group of robots tries to clean up the mess. After 700 years, WALL-E is the only one still functioning. When a probe robot named EVE appears, WALL-E falls in love with her, following her into the depths of space when she is recalled to the mother ship.

In Detail: It really is a very good movie. I see why the critics love it. It is very sweet and full of heart. It is quite funny in places, it is sad in places, and it is very pointed in places (particularly for adults). Ignoring the setting, it is so very much like a classic Disney movie, it's almost scary. Hey, there's a reason we still consider those movies classics today, and I have no doubt that *this* movie will become one of those classics that my great-great-grandchildren will watch. All of that said, I was a little disappointed in it. It just wasn't a lot of fun. Now, I'm not saying that all Pixar movies have to be fun, I was just hoping it would be a bit lighter, a little more for kids, dare I say, a little sillier. It was fine for kids, no objections to content. In fact, it was great for little kids in one respect: it is not a heavy dialog movie. It is more like a silent movie than anything, and even young kids can intuit a good bit of what is going on. But the deeper points would be totally lost on anyone younger than at least 7 or 8 years old. And if it hadn't been for the fact that they do market their films to children, I suspect the ending would have been different.

We did take the child, and he did seem to like it. It was later in the day than I would have liked, and he'd gotten up unusually early, so he was pretty tired by the time it started. He was very engaged for the first 30-45 minutes. He seemed to zone out a bit in the middle, partly due to what was going on, I think, and partly just due to being tired. He perked back up with 20-30 minutes left to go, though, and he did ask to see another movie when it was over, so I guess he enjoyed the experience. He just wasn't as excited about it as I'd hoped he'd be. We knew it wasn't the perfect movie for him we'd been waiting for, but that's okay. So far this year, Kung Fu Panda is really more what I had in mind for him. I may have to reconsider what I said last week and take him to see it. We're still considering.

Will I Buy It? Yes. I know I sound a little negative about it. It really is a very good movie! It just turned out a little different from what I wanted it to be.

Addendum: As with most Pixar movies, the more we see it, the more we like it. Even the child loves it (robots and space ships, what's not to love).

Kung Fu Panda

2008-06-22T22:05:00.001-04:00

In a Nutshell: Great fun! We really liked it a lot.

Quick Plot: Po, the "fluffy" panda, dreams of joining the Furious Five masters of kung fu in the Jade Palace, but his father wants him to take over their noodle house. When this untrained warrior wannabe is selected as the Dragon Warrior to defend the town, no on can believe it, especially Po. Can he master this martial art and save the village?

In Detail: We really did like this movie. The opening sequence had us just rolling! Those 5 minutes alone were worth the price of admission. We will never again use the word "awesomeness" without laughing. Most of you know that "typical" Jack Black films (like Nacho Libre) are not my cup of tea, and I was concerned that Kung Fu Panda would be "too Jack Black," but it wasn't at all. I thought he was great. The animation was quite good, and the kung fu sequences were amazing! They really spent a lot of time working on them, and it showed. (For those not aware, the Furious Five are based on the five main forms of kung fu: tiger, mantis, monkey, crane, and snake.) The plot is very straight forward; nothing unexpected except maybe how the final battle resolves, which was priceless. It was also a lot more serious than I was expecting. Not in a bad way, I just expected them to try and be funny all the time, but it really had a lot of heart and quiet moments as well, which to me was a very good thing. My one main criticism is that the other voice talents were very under-used. Why go after such big names if they don't have worthwhile parts? But that is about the only thing I could find wrong with it. Oh, and do stay for all of the credits. Not only is there a coda at the end, the "background" that is going on behind the credits actually fills in some small bits of the story. Nothing major, just little tidbits that were follow-ups to some things that has been left and not picked up again. It was very neat to see and made waiting for the coda very enjoyable.

Now, for those wondering if we will be taking the child to see it, the answer is no. It is not that I object to any of the content! From that perspective, in my opinion, it is fine for children. The problem is that, at age 3.5 (can you believe it?!), my child doesn't have the judgment not to "hi-ya" everything in sight, and I *know* that is what would happen. He would want to imitate what he saw on the screen, and I think he just needs to be a little older so that he doesn't hurt himself (or us, or the furniture, or the cats, or....). Give it a year or two, and it will be a great movie for him.

Will I Buy It? Yes! We'd buy it just for us, even if we didn't have a child.

Iron Man

2008-06-09T22:18:00.000-04:00

In a Nutshell: Loved it. If you like action movies, comic book adaptations, or Robert Downey, Jr. at all, you should definitely see it.

Quick Plot: Tony Stark is the world's leading weapon manufacturer. When he is kidnapped by insurgents and ordered to build them a weapon of awesome power, he instead builds a suit to help him escape and decides to fight evil.

In Detail: Not sure how much detail to give. I certainly don't want to spoil any of the fun bits! I will tell you that my husband grew up reading Iron Man comics and is quite a fan, and I have never read a comic in my life, and we both really enjoyed this movie. You all know that I like brainless action films anyway, and this is by far one of the best movies we have seen in the last 2-3 years. It even had a little bit of brain to it. The effects were good, the banter was wonderful (how could it not be with Robert Downey, Jr.?), there were serious moments and hilarious ones, the film was paced very well, it never felt too long... I could go on and on. Even my parents liked it! Just extremely well done. Definitely looking forward to the next one. Oh yes, there will be a next one. Don't believe me? Be sure you stay for all of the credits; there's a coda at the end.

Will I Buy It? Definitely!

The Pixar Story

2008-06-09T22:16:00.001-04:00

In a Nutshell: Excellent Pixar documentary. If you are a Pixar fan at all, you should see it.

Quick Plot: The story of how Pixar came to be. This is not about their technical achievements or software design, but about the people who make Pixar the company we love.

In Detail: Just excellent. I cannot say enough good things about this documentary. I have been a fan of Pixar since *before* Toy Story. We saw most of Pixar's shorts on VHS in high school (1993 or 1994) because one of my teachers knew someone who knew someone at Berkley, if I recall the story correctly. Then came Toy Story, truly one of the most amazing things I ever saw at the theater, both in terms of technical achievement and in terms of pure story. Pixar does amazing things, but what makes the company continue to be amazing is its people. Those people are at the heart of this documentary. See them in their natural habitat, see them when they were young and naive, see them as they are today. And never cease to be amazed at what they have achieved, and what they have overcome to achieve it. (A little bit of trivia for you: the writer and director of this documentary, Leslie Iwerks, is the granddaughter of an old friend of Walt Disney and the first ever Disney employee, after Walt himself. His name is Ub Iwerks. Amazing man; you should do some research on him if you are a Disney or animation buff.)

Will I Buy It? I'm seriously thinking I will. To put that into perspective, I only own two other documentaries, both of them about Titanic.

The Bourne Ultimatum

2008-06-09T22:14:00.000-04:00

In a Nutshell: Not a whole lot of plot, but it more than makes up for it with excellent suspense. One of the best nail-biters I've seen in a while.

Quick Plot: Jason Bourne is tired of living on the run with no memory. He wants to know who he really is, and he wants to be left alone.

In Detail: That pretty much covers it. Not a whole lot of plot to speak of, but that's okay. I don't mind if a film doesn't have a long detailed plot as long as it does well with what it has. On this front, the film does quite well. More Joan Allen (good), more Julia Stiles (good), and adding David Strathairn (good). And they really did build the suspense from one scene to the next. They would build it up and let it down, but not quite all the way down, then build it back up again. We really enjoyed it. Just sit back and let it roll; don't think too hard.

Will I Buy It? Don't know. I don't even know if we own the first one. It was good, I'm just not sure if we'd watch it over and over (besides, my parents own it, so we could borrow it if need be).

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

2008-06-09T22:12:00.001-04:00

In a Nutshell: Disappointing. Not terrible, just not as good as Raiders or Crusade. Perhaps on par with Doom; better in some ways and not as good in others.

Quick Plot: A Soviet KGB agent seeks an ancient crystal skull, reported to have mind control powers. Indy must stop her, both to restore his reputation and to help a kidnapped friend.

In Detail: I honestly don't know what to say about this movie. It just felt... off. It was very strange. Most of the things that critics/reviewers liked about it were the parts I didn't care for, and most of the things that they thought were done poorly were the more enjoyable/important parts for me. The opening sequence, in particular, seemed almost to be a caricature of Indiana Jones movies, as though we weren't really supposed to believe what was going on. Some of that is fine, realizing that Indy can't do what he used to do with his added years (and mileage). It also broke a cardinal rule for me with this kind of "willing suspension of disbelief" film; if you establish the rules of your world as functioning in a particular manner, then you have to stick with your own rules! (Magnetism, for those who have seen it. That's all I'll say here.) Very unusual for Spielberg. To me, the film improved in the realm of believability after this segment, at least somewhat. Despite that, no one in the film seemed to really believe what they were saying, at least not most of the time, particularly on the looped segments (looping is when dialog has to be re-recorded after the scene has been filmed, usually due to excessive background noise of some sort; think dubbing). It did have its moments, don't get me wrong. Some scenes were done very well, and I thought they did an excellent job of lending some weight and importance to Indy's activities since we last saw him. But the pieces of this movie just didn't seem to mesh as well as in previous films. To address the two other primary concerns I have heard from many people: 1) I had no problem with the CG effects in the movie, so don't worry too much about what you have seen in the previews. I was fine with what they did, generally speaking. And 2) yes, Cate Blanchett is a one-sided character, but she is meant to be, much like the high priest in Doom. Given that, she does it well. Just don't expect a deep and multi-layered performance; it was never intended that way.

Will I Buy It? Probably, but more because we feel compelled to than because we liked the movie. ::heavy sigh::

Premonition

2007-06-19T20:55:00.001-04:00

In a Nutshell: Wow, not at all where I thought that movie was going to go. It was one of those strange movies where I thought it was quite good, but I'm not sure if I liked it.

Quick Plot: A wife and mother lives the days before and after her husband's fatal accident out of order. Can her foreknowledge of his death help her prevent it?

In Detail: This really did not turn out to be the movie I was expecting. From the previews, I thought they were going one way with it, and it didn't turn out that way at all. More like a chick-flick thriller, if you can imagine such a thing. Not in a bad way. I like chick flicks! And it certainly kept me guessing. My best friend and I went to see it while she was visiting, and about half-way through, I leaned over to her and said "my brain hurts!" She just nodded in agreement, LOL. I spent much of the movie going, "okay, but wait...." Lots going on, lots to keep track of, if you like that kind of thing. I still have one little issue that I can't quite make fit, but I'll live.

Will I Buy It? Probably not. Worth renting (we did the dollar theater, and it was definitely worth more than that) or catching on television, but don't go out of your way.

The DaVinci Code

2007-06-19T20:52:00.000-04:00

In a Nutshell: Better than I was expecting (haven't read the book), but the reveal came *way* too early.

Quick Plot: Robert Langdon is drawn into a mystery full of symbols and danger, as a violent sect tries to destroy The Holy Grail.

In Detail: I had something here about the politics of this whole thing, but I deleted it. I'll just leave it at this: this is a work of fiction, both the film and the book. A well researched one putting forth an intriguing theory, I'll admit. Kind of like the one about men never really landing on the moon and all the footage being faked. Believe it, don't believe it, it doesn't matter. You have to decide for yourself. Okay? Now then, where were we? Ah, yes.

I found this quite an enjoyable movie. Must more a suspense film than a mystery film, which surprised me. And it stars Alfred Molina, which long-time readers of these musings know is a huge plus in my book! Ian McKellen is his usual grandiose and glorious self. I still think Tom Hanks was not the best choice for Langdon, but he managed better than I thought. You see, The DaVinci Code (which I have not read yet) is the *second* Robert Langdon novel. The first, which I have read, is Angels & Demons, and I loved it! So I was familiar with the character already. (BTW, everyone I know who has read both novels prefers A&D to Code.) He did a decent job here. The female lead was just sort-of there. Didn't love her, didn't hate her. But to be the female lead, I think she should have been a little more... engaging? Oh well. But as I said at the beginning, my biggest bone to pick with this movie is the reveal. I thought the whole thing was given away much much too early, though for once, DH didn't pick up on it. (Strange. He usually gets it before I do. He had The Sixth Sense figured out by the time Willis and Osment first met!) He did have it figured out by the end, but I felt like they had out and out *told* you much earlier than that. Took much of the tension out of the rest of the movie, but it was still a fun ride.

Will I Buy It? I don't know. Probably not, though I said that about National Treasure, I think, and ended up watching it so much on television that we now own it and watch it frequently. Guess we'll have to play wait and see on this one. I still say probably not, though.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

2007-06-19T20:35:00.001-04:00

In a Nutshell: Disappointing. I am very unhappy with this film overall. If I could have Pirates 1 and 2, and just forget 3, I would (but that would make the end of Pirates 2 rather bothersome, no?).

Quick Plot: Too much plot for its own good! One of my many complaints. Will looks to free his father from Davy Jones. Will and Elizabeth can't quite get it together. The crew tries to retrieve Jack Sparrow (excuse me, *Captain* Sparrow) from Davy Jones' Locker with the help of a Chinese map and an old friend. And Beckett seeks to destroy all the pirate brethren and bring order to the high seas. And I left out a ton of sub-plots. See, too much!

In Detail: There really isn't much detail I can give without spoiling a whole bunch of the movie. Truly not much I feel I can share. I am just very unhappy with this movie overall. The best part of the whole film should not be a glorified cameo. It was too long and too hard to keep track of who was doing what where and when. There was too much that I feel was brought in out of the blue that should have at least been somewhat incorporated or hinted at in 2; there were a lot of "where the heck did that come from?" moments for me. And there were way too many things that were meaningless. Things they made a big deal out of that turned out to be nothing (or were ultimately ignored), and my largest irritant: meaningless death(s). You want to kill that person(s), fine, but they deserve better than the death(s) they got. It was like the writers painted themselves into a corner, and instead of working out something smart and surprising, they just said "okay, we're done with you, off with your head" (figuratively speaking, of course). And the big moment near the end totally irritated me, but not for the reason you think (has nothing to do with wanting the obvious, it is the lack of choice; was that vague enough, or so vague it made no sense?).

But I will say this for both the movie and the franchise. I've talked about it before, but I have to say it again. It is rare that I see a film that causes me to sit stunned in the theater with my mouth hanging open in shock. In the POTC franchise, that has happened to me not once, not twice, but THREE times!! Once per film, in fact. Now *that* is saying something. Not sure what it's saying exactly, but given that it is a rare occurrence, for the filmmakers to make me do that three times in three movies, that's impressive.

For those who want my spoiler-iffic list of grievances (it's long, I warn you, even by my standards), please feel free to email me, and I'll send it out to you. Please note that it is not in "official" musing form. It is really just a long rambling email to my best bud and my brother, so it isn't necessarily logical and coherent. Anyway, if you're interested, I'll send it to you. But only if you ask, and please, I beg you, only if you have already seen the movie. Oh, and if you missed the coda at the end after the credits (did you know each of the three Pirates films has one?), I hear it is up on YouTube. Just FYI, since I know at least one person who missed it (hi, Kelli!).

Will I Buy It? I don't know. I'll have to see it again to decide. I can't imagine that we won't, just to have "the end" of Pirates 2, I guess. But on it's own merits, were it not part of a trilogy or if the other two could stand alone? No, I wouldn't buy it. (Yes, folks, it irritated me that much!)

Spider-Man 3

2007-05-14T20:58:00.002-04:00

In a Nutshell: Quite good, definitely worth seeing. I liked it better than DH, who read the comics growing up. To him, Spidey 2 is far superior; I thought this one was only slightly less good.

Quick Plot: Peter is riding high on the public's love for Spider-Man, but his fame attracts unwanted attention from not one, but three villains, while simultaneously alienating the people he loves most.

In Detail: As I said, quite a good movie. Though packed with action, it was lacking in some originality that the first two had. They also moved a little more away from the "rules" they set for themselves in the first two films. I'm all good with willing suspension of disbelief, as long as you follow the rules that you lay down, and that was missing some here. Spider-Man is not invincible. He smashes into a wall, he's going to hurt and bleed and break something, not walk away with barely a scratch (no matter which suit he's wearing). And what happened to spider-sense? That seemed to be missing (yes, I know about Venom not triggering it in the comics, but Peter seemed not to have it at all in this film no matter who he is fighting).

I did like that the story was more personal, less about an outside foe and more about things happening close to home and heart. But I think they were trying too hard with Sandman. I actually could have done without that whole storyline. Given that the movie did have three villains, I think they juggled all of the various story lines admirably well. But in the end, it was just too much to handle. Just cut one (or two) and make another movie! I did love some other aspects of the movie, such as them finally getting to have some fun with each other on screen. It did add some unnecessary length to the film, but it was hilarious! There was another thing that I thought was excellent that I wish they had done more of, but I can't tell you because it would ruin a plot point. If you've seen it and you're dying to know, email me and I'll tell you. And I have to give credit to Topher Grace. This was not his usual role, and he clearly relished it!

As you may recall from my review of Spider-Man 2, I loved each of the piece-parts of the movie (villain, Peter and Harry, Peter and MJ, etc), but I thought the whole didn't quite work together as well as it should have. For Spider-Man 3, unlike most of the critics, I felt that the pieces worked and flowed much better here, though each of those pieces was generally not as good as Spider-Man 2. Weird, I know. It doesn't make sense to me either, but that's how it stands IMO. Definitely see it, though! Oh, and there's no coda at the end, so no reason to sit through all of the credits if you don't want.

Will I Buy It? Most likely, unless DH truly objects.

Chicken Little

2007-05-14T14:49:00.002-04:00

In a Nutshell: Cute little movie, though it was a bit light on plot. Not nearly as bad as the critics lead me to believe. This is the first Disney movie I ever missed seeing in the theaters, and now I'm a bit sorry I did. Far from great, but also far from terrible.

Quick Plot: After an embarrassing incident claiming the sky was falling, Chicken Little is working to repair the damage to his reputation and his relationship with his father. Just as he begins to make headway winning respect and affection, history repeats itself as a piece of the sky falls into his life.

In Detail: I was looking for something very light to watch one evening last week, and this definitely fit the bill. In fact, it was almost too light. It was as though they stretched each scene by 10-20% to make a full length feature. Some song filler is fine, but it does not make a whole film. The stuff they had was good stuff! I just wish they had expanded on it a bit. There were also some great zingers in there just for the adults that will be lost on the kidos. The beginning of the film is the best part, especially for those folks readily familiar with the full body of Disney feature animation. Too funny! I bet it was amazing in 3-D! (My brother says it was.) Worth seeing or renting, especially for children.

Will I Buy It? Don't know. In our pre-child days, I don't think I would have bought it just for DH and me. I might let my son see it on TV to see if he likes it before deciding. Goodness knows, we could use some new films for him to watch over and over (and over and over and....).

Addendum: We did finally buy this movie, and at least for age 3-4, it is one of our son's favorite movies! It has grown on us a lot, too.

The Bridge

2007-05-14T14:46:00.002-04:00

In a Nutshell: I stumbled on this one late night on IFC (dangerous, I know; that is the Independent Film Channel, for those unfamiliar), just moments after it started. It really was like an accident, you just can't not look once you start watching. Very powerful, and very unsettling.

Quick Plot: Taken directly from IMDb, because I couldn't have said it better. "This is a documentary exploration of the mythic beauty of the Golden Gate Bridge, the most popular suicide destination in the world, and those drawn by its call. Steel and his crew filmed the bridge during daylight hours from two separate locations for all of 2004, recording most of the two dozen deaths in that year (and preventing several others). They also taped interviews with friends, families and witnesses, who recount in sorrowful detail stories of struggles with depression, substance abuse and mental illness."

In Detail: I really wasn't sure I wanted to watch this. In fact, I'm still not. I thought it was going to be awful, and it was very emotional, but it was also fascinating. Listening to how differently each person felt about what had happened to the person they knew; it was an amazing study of human nature, grieving, family, and friendship. I'm not sure I'm explaining this very well. I'm not sure I can. And I absolutely cannot recommend this film to everyone. You have to decide if it is something you think you can handle; I know not everyone can. I won't lie, it is hard to watch. But I'm not sorry I did, and it is one of those things that has stuck with me far more than I thought it would. Very haunting.

Will I Buy It? No. I don't care to see it again.

2007-05-14T14:44:00.001-04:00

In a Nutshell: A good no-brainer type film. I like Nic Cage in this type of roll, I like Julianne Moore, and it is based on a Phillip K. Dick story. Makes you think a little, but don't think too much or you won't have any fun!

Quick Plot: Cris Johnson can see about 2 minutes into the future, and the government is "requesting" his help in finding a nuclear bomb that has been smuggled onto US soil. Cris is only interested in finding "her," the only thing he has been able to see farther away than 2 minutes.

In Detail: A nice popcorn flick, mostly forgettable after you walk out of the theater. Still, it was a perfectly pleasant diversion for an afternoon after the spring drought at the movies. Certainly was the most promising thing out at the time! And we really did enjoy it. Just don't over-think it. The plot holes are huge, and even the logic starts to unravel if you try and use your brain too much. Just hop on and enjoy the ride. Nicolas Cage excels at these straight but slightly off-beat characters, and Julianne Moore is her usual serious but excellent self (but if she's going to continue being in action movies, the woman has *got* to learn how to run! LOL). For Jessica Biel, who has recently stated that she wants to be taken more seriously in Hollywood, this is a step in the right direction (certainly better than "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry"!), but she needs rolls with more meat and less, er, flesh (no, no nudity, just a lot of looking at her and not much doing on her part).

Will I Buy It? Probably not. We have other movies of this type (including others by Phillip K. Dick) that we prefer. This was not a stand out in any aspect. Worth catching on television or DVD, but don't go out of your way.

Music & Lyrics

2007-02-22T15:01:00.000-05:00

In a Nutshell: Very very sweet, and really quite funny. If you're an 80s music fan, you will enjoy it even more!

Quick Plot: A former hit 80s band member is asked by the hottest pop star in the world to write a new song, and she wants it in just a few days. There's just one problem: he doesn't "do" lyrics. But he accidentally discovers that his plant care girl does.

In Detail: We really really liked this movie, probably more than it deserves. When we saw the previews last month, we were just dying laughing and absolutely had to see it. It is a romantic comedy, and proud of the fact, done with style and class. It wasn't fall-in-the-floor funny as we thought it might be. It was a bit more subtle than that. And there wasn't any stupid or gross-out humor, which was very nice. And you have to pay attention to what is being said. Hugh Grant has some great zingers said in typical British-mumble fashion towards the very end of some scenes, but if you aren't listening, you'll miss it. (Like the girl sitting in front of us who was constantly leaning over to her significant other and asking "what did he say?" Drove me nuts!) The best part, though, was the music. The movie is plenty enjoyable on its own, but 80s music fans will be especially tickled with the music. It is such a fabulous homage to that era, very well done. And possibly the best compliment of all: DH and I both have been singing one of the songs constantly since we saw it! "I said I wasn't gonna lose my head, but then POP! goes my heart...." Oh, one more thing. VH1 fans should most definitely stay for the credits! They do a Pop-Up Video version of the video that is shown at the beginning of the film. Now THAT was fall in the floor funny! The stuff shown after the video is interesting, but not really important, so you don't have to stay. But the Pop-Up video thing is great and absolutely worth waiting for.

Will I Buy It? I don't know. I would say yes, there is a serious chance that we might. But I can tell you we will definitely be buying the soundtrack!

Shall We Dance

2007-02-22T14:58:00.000-05:00

In a Nutshell: Not what you expect (not a traditional rom-com, or much of a rom-com for that matter), but still quite good. Needed more Stanley Tucci! Worth seeing.

Quick Plot: A bored lawyer signs up for ballroom dance lessons (without telling his wife) after spotting a beautiful instructor in the window on his way home.

In Detail: This is really not a romantic comedy at all. It has some romance, and it has some funny parts (some *very* funny parts), but it is primarily a drama. Going into it with that knowledge I think would have helped me with this movie; I kept getting tripped up by it not going where I thought it was going to go. I do think less blond chick (Bobbie) and more Stanley Tucci would have helped a lot (I adore Tucci in roles like this). I definitely think I need to see it again. I liked Gere okay, I thought Jennifer Lopez was quite good, the peripheral characters were fun. But to me, the master performance in this film is Susan Sarandon. She is always amazing, but this one was quite subtle and layered. She also gives one of the most powerful quotes about marriage I have ever heard. The whole film was worth that one line, and it is so powerful (to me, at least), that I will give it to you here: "We need a witness to our lives. There's a billion people on the planet. I mean, what does any one life really mean? But in a marriage, you're promising to care about everything. The good things, the bad things, the terrible things, the mundane things. All of it, all of the time, every day. You're saying 'Your life will not go unnoticed because I will notice it. Your life will not go un-witnessed because I will be your witness'." Amen. Worth seeing.

Will I Buy It? Not at this point. I definitely need to see it again with different expectations. Perhaps that will change my mind.

Wimbledon

2007-02-22T14:56:00.001-05:00

In a Nutshell: Blah and boring. Neither overly romantic nor comedic. Don't bother.

Quick Plot: An aging tennis pro and a young rising superstar strike up a romance prior to the international competition, much to the delight of his friends and the chagrin of her father.

In Detail: In the "tell us what you really think" department, there is very very little to tell. Not very funny. Not very romantic. Not much chemistry. Not much plot. Even the footage of the tournament wasn't compelling. Just totally blah. Seriously, don't waste your time.

Will I Buy It? Nope.

Emma

2007-02-22T14:53:00.000-05:00

In a Nutshell: Sweet, good, but not great. The right style, but it lacked something I can't quite put my finger on.

Quick Plot: A well-born Victorian lady becomes so involved while playing cupid for her friends that she almost misses out on love herself.

In Detail: Not much detail to give, really. It was a quite good film, very sweet, very Victorian (Edwardian?), though I hear it does waver a bit from the source material (don't all films?). It was rather early in Gwyneth Paltrow's career, 2 years before Shakespeare in Love, I believe, and it shows. She certainly has blossomed. That British accent of hers has been perfection from the start, though (you *do* know she is American, right?). There is even a small appearance by Ewan McGregor, and he sings! Really needed to cut the hair, though. LOL I am not a big Toni Collette fan, though, and this film didn't help her any in my estimation. The surprise was seeing Alan Cumming in an essentially straight role. No creepy kiddie show host, no psychotic computer genius, no midnight blue makeup and tail; just a very understated performance. (Extra points if you can name those three films.) A very sweet film, worth seeing if you like this sort of genre.

Will I Buy It? I don't think so. There are too many other Victorian rom-coms out there that are much better.

Stranger Than Fiction

2007-01-16T20:49:00.002-05:00

In a Nutshell: I quite liked this movie! Funny, but not really a comedy. Very sweet and touching.

Quick Plot: As a writer struggles to finish her first new book in years, a man begins to hear his life narrated. He is the person she is writing. So which of them is in control of his destiny?

In Detail: As I said, I liked this movie quite a bit, probably more than it really deserves. I love Emma Thompson, who is her usual slightly off-center self here. Dustin Hoffman practically steals the film. And Will Farrell genuinely surprised me. He was very sincere and understated, and even very funny, but not in the usual Will Farrell way that I despise. The film is a bit uneven in both pacing and tone, but overall, it works. Definitely worth a rental!

Will I Buy It? Not sure. I'll need to see it again to know if it is worth multiple repeat viewings.

Addendum: We did indeed see this movie again, and it has quickly become one of our favorites, so we bought it.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

2007-01-16T20:46:00.002-05:00

In a Nutshell: Not as good as the first, but could it ever have been? Too long, generally speaking, but still a rousing good time!

Quick Plot: Will and Elizabeth are arrested for helping *Captain* Jack Sparrow escape from prison. To win their freedom, Will must strike a deal with the East India Trading Company to acquire Jack's infamous compass, or they will both be hanged.

In Detail: Okay, so the plot description leaves a lot to be desired, but there is a ton of stuff in this movie! Almost too much, I'd say, especially when we waste so much time on cannibals. I understand the purpose of that whole sideline was to allow Will to catch up to Jack, but come on! You could have cut 15 minutes right there, easy. That was really my biggest complaint about the film. It wasn't quite as "smart" as the first one, and it sometimes felt a bit disjointed (see remark about being too much stuff in one film). The absolute best scene in the film is when they are on the island with the chest. Between the three men with swords, and the two swords for two pirates and a lady, it is absolutely fantastic and comes closest to capturing the magic of the first film. And for anyone who left the theater before literally the last 15 seconds of the movie finished rolling, you deserved what you got. There is something to be said for a film franchise that has left me open-mouthed twice in two films! I just psyched myself out. I know who is one of the stars of the next film, so I assumed he would be it, so I was stunned about who it really was even though I really should have known. The second film is often the weakest of a trilogy (with some notable exceptions), and I hope that is the case here. Looking forward to being "At World's End" this summer!

Will I Buy It? Already did!

The Pursuit of Happyness

2007-01-16T15:12:00.001-05:00

In a Nutshell: I'm a sucker for Will Smith, so that's really all I needed to know to see this movie. Still, it is very well done, even unusually understated for this type of "rah-rah" true(ish) life film.

Quick Plot: A single father struggles to make ends meet in order to pursue the chance to become a stock broker to finally be financially stable, and perhaps then be truly happy.

In Detail: Not really much to tell. You don't go to this type of film to be surprised, and there is nothing surprising here. Except how much that child looks like his mother! Sheesh! (For those who don't know, the boy is the real-life son of Will Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith.) It really makes me want to read the autobiography the film is based on. From interviews, I understand that the scene with them locked in the subway bathroom (because they are evicted) is true; the Rubik's Cube is not. :-) If you like this kind of movie, or Will Smith, then see it. Otherwise, skip it.

Will I Buy It? Probably not, but I'm glad we saw it.

Eragon

2007-01-16T15:08:00.002-05:00

In a Nutshell: I really wanted to like this movie, and I think kids might (though one of the kinds of bad guys were really creepy to me), but I just really didn't. Very disappointing.

Quick Plot: Can one boy accept his destiny as the last of the Dragon Riders and save his world from the evil king?

In Detail: You don't really need me to tell you the plot do you? It is Star Wars blended with Lord of the Rings on dragons. There, no need for you to see the movie now. How can a movie with this much potential be so.... boring?! Seriously, it was boring. I could not have been more surprised. I looked at my watch 3-4 times in the first 30 minutes. Not a good start. And everything was so disjointed. It's like someone went through and ripped out "the important pages" from the book and just filmed those, almost like a checklist. Voice over for extremely brief backstory, check. Introduce villain, check. Introduce pretty girl, check. Introduce hero, check. Introduce mentor, check. Introduce dragon, check. Circumstances send hero out on quest, check. There was no depth of any kind. The film's primary redeeming feature is Robert Carlyle, and he just isn't in it enough to make up for the rest of the film. Not even Jeremy Irons is enough to rescue it for me! And John Malkovich is just... distracting. They should have given Jeremy Irons *his* part and found someone else for the mentor, IMHO. I was just not impressed at all, except with the effects which were amazing. If I didn't know better, I'd think they'd hired a real dragon! There were times when the "real" dragon seemed to be on a blue screen with a computer-animated rider, but still, she was simply stunning. Rent it if you must.

Will I Buy It? I don't care to see it again.

Casino Royale

2007-01-16T15:06:00.002-05:00

In a Nutshell: I have issues with some Bond particulars, but on the whole, a quite acceptable addition to the franchise. And surprise, surprise: I see Mr. Craig's potential, that's for sure. Give him a "real" James Bond film (this was not it), and he will make a very good 007 indeed.

Quick Plot: Bond's first adventure as Bond. There is really nothing else of importance.

In Detail: Hmmm.... what to say here. I will say that it is a movie worth seeing. Whether or not on the big screen is up to you and your status as a Bond fan (though if you are a true Bond fan, you've already seen it, haven't you?). And it was not as bad as I expected it to be. On the contrary, it is quite a good spy/action film. What it is NOT is a James Bond film. I agree with whichever reviewer I read who said it feels more like The Bourne Identity than a James Bond. Don't get me wrong, I liked The Bourne Identity. But it is not James Bond. Casino Royale had its moments where it "felt right," but they were few and far between. I understand that there were to be differences, seeing as this was supposed to be his first case (don't get me started on how they made that work (or didn't, as the case may be)). It wasn't the gadgets or lack there of, it wasn't the girl (generally speaking, I liked her as a Bond girl), it wasn't anything specific. It just felt "off" somehow. The surprise in all of this was Daniel Craig. Much to my surprise, he has the potential to become an excellent James Bond. I just hope they give him a better film next time.

Will I Buy It? Yes, but only because I'm a lifetime Bond fan.

Superman Returns

2006-07-17T15:22:00.002-04:00

In a Nutshell: I liked and enjoyed it a lot. As an homage to the original films, it is perfection. On its own, it needed a little help.

Quick Plot: After being gone for several years in an attempt to find his home world, Superman Returns, to find Lois has moved on, and Lex hasn't changed one bit.

In Detail: This film is a beautiful love note to the Christopher Reeve films. It was very carefully crafted with shots and scenes taken *directly* from prior movies. Just watching the opening credits is enough to put a goofy grin on your face if you are a fan. It is difficult for me to judge this movie as a separate entity, for some reason. Maybe Bryan Singer does too good of a job? Had this been the first of the "superhero boom," people would be talking about how amazingly wonderful it is. But after such fantastic films as X-Men and Spider-Man, this one falls a little short. Still, it is a very good movie, and absolutely worth seeing in the theater. I am exceedingly impressed with Brandon Routh. I am a huge Christopher Reeve fan, so I was already prejudiced against him, but he really won me over. Kevin Spacey rocks, as always, and the guy who played Jimmy Olson was perfection. Kate Bosworth was quite a departure, but I think I like her take on things (well, mostly). And I was thrilled to see so much of James Marsden here, since his part was smaller in X-Men (I didn't even know he was *in* Superman until the opening credits started running). I was very unhappy with that whole set-up, but it was handled quite gracefully. And I swear he was hired simply for his ability to deliver one particularly cheesy line *without* you rolling your eyes; it was pretty amazing. All of this is not to say that the film didn't have flaws. While no particular scene seemed overlong, the film still seemed to drag here and there. I think it was in my favor that I hadn't seen the prior films in quite some time, so there was no direct comparison, just gentle reminders. Any scenes or lines that seems a bit hokey compared to the rest of the movie (even for a Superman film) is probably a scene from the older films redone. I also think some of the storyline intersplicing was wonky. It just didn't flow very well. But overall, a fine film.

Will I Buy It? I'm not sure. I want to say yes, but I know that DH didn't like it as much as I did, so we'll see. Maybe we'll wait for the next one.

Cars

2006-07-17T15:19:00.000-04:00

In a Nutshell: By general animation standards, it is a very good movie with some stunning visuals. By Pixar standards, it is a little bit of a disappointment.

Quick Plot: Lightening McQueen, hotshot rookie of the racing scene, gets lost on his way to the final race, meeting a group of misfit small town cars who challenge his perceptions.

In Detail: I think, had this been the first Pixar film, everyone would be completely raving about it. Following such a phenomenal string of Pixar films, though, it would have been exceedingly difficult for this one to live up, and it just doesn't quite manage. (I am also tainted because I think The Incredibles is one of the best movies ever made, so that was not in Cars' favor.) I think it has some pacing issues, definitely too long and slow for little children. I think the story is just too ordinary for a Pixar film. I mean, I know we in America like our predictable films, but that is one of the things that made Pixar great: fresh and original versions of the predictable. But my biggest disappointment: I didn't really laugh out loud. A few chuckles, sure, but not the belly laughs I am accustomed to. I will say that I think people who are into cars and racing will probably get more out of it than I did. I have no doubts there are some references that I missed. Still good, still worth seeing in the theaters. Just not quite up to their usual standards.

Will I Buy It? Yes. It is still some of the best film making out there today, and still great for kids.

X-Men: The Last Stand

2006-07-17T15:16:00.000-04:00

In a Nutshell: Quite good, with a few surprises even, but not up to the supremely high standards set by the first two.

Quick Plot: Once again, humanity has attracted the ire of Magneto, this time over the development over a "cure for mutation."

In Detail: Hmm... what to say of this film. It is good, and it is worth seeing. I think it was a little light on plot, but it was still handled very well. I am a bit irritated with how a couple of other things were handled, but nothing I can expound on here. Email me if you've seen it and you want to know. Had this been the first in the series, people would be raving about how wonderful it is. But with the bar set so very high by the first two, it was simply too much to live up to. And one more thing: WATCH TO THE BITTER END OF THE CREDITS!!! It will knock your socks off.

Will I Buy It? Most likely.

Titanic (1953)

2006-07-06T19:54:00.002-04:00

In a Nutshell: Not very historically accurate, but oddly compelling nonetheless.

Quick Plot: The trouble and strife of a fictitious family on board the ill-fated maiden voyage of the famous luxury liner.

In Detail: I was extremely interested in finally seeing this film. It is *the* classic version of the story, and I can clearly see its influence on James Cameron in his versions. Some shots were taken almost frame for frame from this film, which I consider a very nice touch on his part. The historical accuracy is rather pitiful, though. The costumes are off (too much 50s style comes through), the sets, though lavish, are not even close to the pictures we all know by heart (not even an accurate grand staircase, for goodness sake), the ship doesn't break apart (though there is still some controversy as to whether that happened above or below the water)... I could go on and on. But still, for all that, it really is quite a good movie, with the kind of intense and layered performances that you simply don't see these days. There are many characters who are obviously supposed to be other people (like a Molly Brown type who isn't named that), and with the historical inaccuracies, if you just renamed the ship and thought of it as a sort of take-off on the Titanic story, I think it would come off much better. The special effects are also quite excellent, all things considered, years if not decades ahead of their time. Worth seeing if you like classic movies or are a Titanic buff (so you can pick it apart, hee-hee).

Will I Buy It? I may, simply because I'm a Titanic nut. On its own merits as a film? Probably not. Too many classics are better, IMO.

Ocean's 11 (1960)

2006-07-06T14:53:00.001-04:00

In a Nutshell: Shockingly, I was bored out of my skull! We watched about 45 minutes of it and were falling asleep. We didn't even finish it! A huge disappointment.

Quick Plot: Eleven friends who know each other from World War II service plan to rob five of the biggest casinos in Las Vegas in one night.

In Detail: Not a lot of detail to give, especially when we only watched about 35% of the movie. I was so stunned. We started watching it around 8 PM, and by 8:45, we were both falling asleep in our recliners. The movie was just that slow and boring. I had heard such great things about it, and besides, this is THE Rat Pack, ya know? Surely their greatest film is worth watching, right? Sadly no, it just wasn't for us. I wanted a heist film. Instead, I got 45 minutes of backstory that wasn't even very interesting about characters I didn't care for at all. This is one of the few times I have ever preferred the remake to the original. If someone can convince me that it is worth a retry, I might reconsider, but at the moment, I am just fine never finishing it.

Will I Buy It? No.

Holiday Inn

2006-07-06T14:49:00.000-04:00

In a Nutshell: Cute premise that unfolds in a very standard fashion, typical of 40s rom-coms. Still, it's Bing Crosby and Fred Astaire; how bad can it be?

Quick Plot: A singer separates from his dancing partner to open a country inn that is only open on holidays, with themed shows for each one.

In Detail: An enjoyable 40s musical rom-com, interesting in the premise department, but rather boring in execution. There are some interesting historical aspects to it, though, like Roosevelt's attempt to change the date for Thanksgiving, or Lincoln's Birthday and Washington's Birthday being separate holidays (i.e. no President's Day). Also, the war footage shown during the Independence Day number was from World War I, with biplanes and everything! The film was only made in 1942, so there probably wasn't much WWII footage to go around yet, certainly not in Hollywood. And if you do get a chance to see it, keep this in mind while watching the drunk dance: legend has it that Astaire had two drinks of bourbon before the first take, and one drink of bourbon before each additional take. The 7th and final take was the one used. Method dancing, anyone? LOL A good one if you like these kinds of movies, but not the best example of the genre I've seen.

Will I Buy It? Unlikely.

Addendum: The more I see this one (it has started popping up on our movie channels), the more I like it. If I can find it for a good price on DVD, I'll probably get it.

Dangerous When Wet

2006-07-06T13:29:00.001-04:00

In a Nutshell: No, not a thriller; an Esther Williams musical from 1953. Pretty typical of the era. Nothing to rave about.

Quick Plot: A small-town farm girl is convinced by a slick promoter to participate in a contest to swim the English Channel.

In Detail: Ah, but what is there to say of this movie? A very straight forward 50s era musical, though I do like Esther Williams (much prefer Take Me Out to the Ballgame, though; at least it has Sinatra and Kelly). It was interesting to finally get to see Fernando Lamas in action, though. I had heard much about him, but had never actually seen him in anything. I actually think he'd make a better seductive bad guy than leading man. Ah well. Nothing inspiring or amazing here, most especially the music, which was dismal. It was quite lacking in both quality and variety (there were like only three songs repeated over and over in the whole thing). This film is probably best known for the underwater dream sequence with her and Tom and Jerry (mouse and cat, respectively; and yes, this *is* an MGM picture, why do you ask?). If you like this kind of thing, then it's fine to watch, but nothing to go out of your way for.

Will I Buy It? Couldn't even if I wanted to (and I don't). It is not available on DVD at all or VHS (except in Canada, apparently).

The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement

2006-04-19T15:14:00.001-04:00

In a Nutshell: Eh. Cute, I guess. First one was much better.

Quick Plot: Princess Mia is preparing to take the throne, but first she must outwit a conniving Parliament leader attempting to install someone else as king, all while thwarting a law that demands she get married in order to rule.

In Detail: Like I said, the first one was better. For me, it seemed Mia was just going through the motions instead of "becoming," which was the charm and fun of the first film. Most of the repeated jokes (like the hair dresser guy) were just not funny this time around, the clumsiness seemed much more forced and out of place, and I never felt anything genuine coming from the love interest at all. He came off smarmy no matter what he did. However, this one was much more satisfying in terms of what Julie Andrews gets to do and be, so that was worth it.

Will I Buy It? No.

The Princess Diaries

2006-04-19T14:56:00.000-04:00

In a Nutshell: Quite cute! A pretty good message for tweens, though I disagree with parts of it. Excellent vehicle for Dame Julie Andrews; she is perfection, as always.

Quick Plot: A geeky teenage outcast suddenly learns that she is a princess and destined to rule a small European country, but there is much to learn about behaving royally.

In Detail: This really is a very cute movie, and I highly enjoyed it. I have the sequel recorded and waiting to be watched, if that tells you anything. Anne Hathaway is really very charming, and she does awkward as well as she does regal. I don't like the fact that they felt the need to change her looks *quite* so much; I think it sends a poor message about judging by appearances. That said, though, it still sticks pretty close to the "be true to yourself" message. But the best part of the whole film is watching Julie Andrews finally be the queen we all know her to be. Watching her imitate Mia's walk had me rolling in the floor! And Hector Elizondo is his always-wonderful understated self; I greatly enjoyed watching him interact with both Hathaway and Dame Julie. A fun light movie, great for a (young) girls' night in.

Will I Buy It? Probably not, especially just for myself.

Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen

2006-04-19T13:37:00.002-04:00

In a Nutshell: Fun and quirky, and I liked the message. Great for tweens, despite what you might think of Miss Lohan and her behavior of late.

Quick Plot: A New York City teen is transplanted to Jersey, creating much real and imagined drama in her life. But if she can *just* get in to see her favorite band at their final concert, life will be complete.

In Detail: It was a lot of fun, and I liked it fine. With what little I've seen of both of them, I think between Hillary Duff and Lindsay Lohan, Lohan is the better actress. If she'll just grow up and get over herself (and stop taking after Paris Hilton), I think she'll make a remarkable actress. I also liked the message of the film. The Princess Diaries bothered me because they seemed to emphasize fitting in, most particularly with her appearance. Here, the message was "be yourself and don't worry so much about what others think." I was a little concerned about some of her behavior, particularly the lying, but it turned out fine. Not only did she lose friends and respect for lying, she also got grounded for various things she did that were against the rules. Be yourself, but obey the rules, and live up to your obligations. Sounds like a fabulous teen message to me!! I could have done without the musical interlude every 5 minutes or so (do we really need a different song chorus *every* time we change scenes?), but some of it was quite good. I don't think they integrated the concert storyline and the school musical storyline very well, but that's okay. It was a low-budget kids' film, there's only so much you can expect. I was most irked by the fact that the title song, performed at the end of the school musical, had absolutely *zero* to do with anything in the musical itself. It was simply tacked on because there was singing involved. It is clear, however, that it was meant as a vehicle for The Divine Miss L, and she clearly worked hard on it. The outfit was a little much, as were some of the others in the film, but if that's my only complaint, then it can't have been that bad. :-)

Will I Buy It? Hmm, I'm not sure. Since I have a boy, I'm not sure he'd appreciate it like he should, and besides, it may all be irrelevant 10+ years from now anyway. Cute, but not something I would watch again just for me.

Kaena: The Prophecy

2006-04-19T12:38:00.001-04:00

In a Nutshell: Visually stunning! A true piece of eye candy with incredible CG rendering. Story interesting, execution okay to good. Worth seeing if you are into animation and/or CG.

Quick Plot: A high-spirited teenager discovers the secret of her dying world. Can she convince her people of the truth, even though it goes against all of their historical beliefs, and lead them into a new era?

In Detail: I saw this movie quite a while ago (close to a year, maybe?), and I have in fact seen it several times, but I hadn't thought to write it up until just now. It has recently started coming on our movie channels again, though, which is what reminded me of it. In fact, had it not been for our movie channels, I never would have seen this movie. (Have I mentioned I love our movie channels?) I was hunting for something to watch and I saw this title, which I had never ever heard of. Then I saw that it was animated (how could I not have heard of it?), and then I saw that Richard Harris and Kirsten Dunst were the main voice cast. Excuse me? Turns out it is one of the very last things he did, and the film is dedicated to him. Anyway, I flipped it over about 40 minutes into the film, and I was simply astounded by what I saw. (Keep in mind that my first exposure to this film was on a hi-def channel.) It is just jaw-droppingly beautiful in its crafting and detail. It was created in France (with an originally French voice cast) by game programmers, and it shows, both in visual imagination and skill. It is also clearly made by some men who need to get out a little more (evidenced by her costume (or lack there of); I've seen much worse, but still). LOL It was originally a 3-D movie, which I can imagine was completely mind-blowing. The creatures are amazing, the story is okay, but it is worth seeing purely for its visual beauty.

Will I Buy It? I don't know. I can't say that I love the movie, but I find myself watching it more often than not if I catch it on. If I found it for the right price, I would probably buy it.

Brokeback Mountain

2006-04-01T20:53:00.002-05:00

In a Nutshell: Good movie, excellent performances, but didn't live up to the hype.

Quick Plot: (If you don't know by now, then you have been living under some huge whopping rock for way too long.) Two cowboys begin a forbidden and secret romance that spans several decades.

In Detail: Wow, what to say about this movie. I don't really know. Lots of folks have seen it already, lots of others won't see it for any reason, and still others have lots of questions. If you have some specific questions you would like to ask me about it, email me and I'll get back to you. For me, I'll just review it like I would any other film.

It was very good, but not great. It is one of those films (and I have seen several) where the performances were excellent, but the movie as a whole didn't live up to those performances. My hat is off to Heath Ledger; he was simply amazing. So restrained, so understated, and yet you could just feel his pain and torment flowing from the screen. Jake Gyllenhaal was good, but Ledger was better. It doesn't help that there is something about Gyllenhaal's character that I really didn't like, though I can't really put my finger on it. The movie is very slow, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Most emotional dramas are. But ultimately, I was disappointed. No, disappointed isn't quite right; unsatisfied is probably better. For that kind of build-up and that amount of time and emotional investment in the long and drawn out drama (again, not a necessarily a bad thing), there just wasn't enough pay-off. I should have cried. I should have been bawling. Instead, I barely got misty. I'm all for subtle, but to me, there should have been more. More how or more of what, I'm not sure. It was just missing something. Good, worth seeing if you're interested, but not the great cinematic masterpiece I was expecting.

Will I Buy It? Unlikely. I wouldn't watch it often enough to make it worthwhile.

An Ideal Husband

2006-04-01T14:26:00.000-05:00

In a Nutshell: Excellent! Totally my kind of movie. Charm, wit, twist and turns, beautiful people saying wonderful words, and with delightful British accents to boot. What more can you ask for?

Quick Plot: A conniving woman bent on increasing her own wealth uses cunning and blackmail to convince a former acquaintance to push a detrimental building plan through Parliament, wreaking much havoc on his reputation and his marriage.

In Detail: I do believe that this is the first Oscar Wilde production I have ever seen, and if they are all this good, then it will certainly not be the last. Superb casting, exceptional delivery, and stunningly beautiful to behold, this is simply my kind of movie. They just don't write banter like this anymore. I am out of compliments to give to the cast. Let's just say they were all amazing and leave it at that. I will provide you with their names, though, in case you have forgotten who is in it (it *has* been quite a while since this film was out): Julianne Moore, Jeremy Northam, Cate Blanchett, Minnie Driver, and Rupert Everett. Not to stereotype, but this is very much a Victorian chick flick, and I'm not sure how much a "traditional" male would appreciate it. But if you like snappy and fun dialog driven period films, this one is a definite must! It is quite a slow movie, but that is in no way a bad thing! It gives you time to digest the performances and all of the glorious words being used. This is not a movie to watch with lots of background noise; you have to *listen* or you'll miss most of the good stuff. And it is so worth it!

Will I Buy It? Yes! Though it is on the "to buy when we have the money" list, not the "rush out and buy it immediately" list.

Finding Neverland

2006-04-01T13:23:00.001-05:00

In a Nutshell: Very good. Excellent performances all around, and bring plenty of hankies!

Quick Plot: The story of J.M. Barrie and the events and people surrounding his creation of the most famous boy who never grew up.

In Detail: I greatly enjoyed this film. Johnny Depp is simply magnificent. He always is, but to me, this was an even more stunning performance because it was so calm and reasonable and rational, and yet magical and captivating as always. When he is on the screen, you simply cannot take your eyes off of him, and it has nothing to do with his looks. He is just totally enthralling. Kate Winslet is her ever-wondrous self, though this is becoming a common character type for her to play. Still, she plays it to perfection. Freddie Highmore was also wonderful; Hollywood needs to keep an eye on that one. The editing and art direction for the shifts from imaginary to real, and the weaving of the real into the imaginary story is so fantastic, it is worth watching just for those moments. And last, but not least, it is quite the tear-jerker. Have plenty of hankies or tissue on hand before starting the film. Wonderful movie!

Will I Buy It? I'm not sure. I don't get in the mood for tear-jerkers very often, but this one was so very good, I just might have to pick it up anyway.

V for Vendetta

2006-03-24T20:04:00.001-05:00

In a Nutshell: Quite fun! Doesn't take itself seriously. Not as good as the original Matrix film, but better than either sequel, IMO.

Quick Plot: A mysterious masked figure in the near-future seeks to topple a strict dictatorial government with the help of a young woman he abducted, and hopefully the rest of the nation.

In Detail: While I wouldn't quite say that this film lives up to its hype, it was great fun to watch. It is not meant to be serious (though it does have a few serious points to make in a satirical fashion), so just turn off your brain and watch. The V monologue alone is worth the price of admission. Quite a bit of stylish action, a large dollop of wit, and some fantastic tongue in cheek humor make for an enjoyable two hours. I have a special fondness for the actor who plays V (I won't give it away for those who like to guess), so that certainly doesn't hurt. Several have criticized it on moral grounds, and in light of world events of the last 5 years, I can see their point to a certain extent. Then again, perhaps that is one of the points of the movie, no? You decide.

Will I Buy It? I'd put it on the maybe list. I'd like to see it again to decide if I'd watch it frequently. I'm not sure that I would; I prefer The Matrix.

Ultraviolet

2006-03-24T19:58:00.002-05:00

In a Nutshell: Bleh. Don't bother. Even films I don't expect much from need more than Milla Jovovich in skimpy costumes and CG effects.

Quick Plot: A group of genetic outcasts capture a weapon that will obliterate all of their kind from the planet. The agent sent to intercept it learns that it may also be the key to a cure. Can the cure be discovered before the others destroy it, or will it be the end of her people?

In Detail: We did not go into this film expecting very much, but it delivered even less. We thought of it it on the same level as The Scorpion King: great late late night film, should be a fun and forgettable 2 hours. The Scorpion King looks Oscar caliber compared to Ultraviolet and contains immeasurably more plot. It also doesn't take itself too seriously, whereas Ultraviolet tries to be both serious and relevant (and fails dismally). More than a few people left about 30 minutes in (it wasn't quite *that* bad). Several action sequences were either too long and/or too repetitive, to the point of using some of the same footage. What little plot there was seemed made up as they went along. I'm all for twists, but these didn't make any sense. It was like sitting in a room and asking for plot points for any movie, then trying to make them fit into this one with little or no effort to connect them (should there have been a way to do so), and some other things that could have used explanation were never even touched on. The effects were cool, yes, but that alone cannot carry a film. Let's not even discuss the acting. I've seen worse movies for sure, but this one was pretty bad.

Will I Buy It? You're kidding, right? Nope.

Serenity

2006-03-24T15:51:00.003-05:00

In a Nutshell: Great fun! Especially for the sci-fi or action genre fans. Definitely makes me want see Firefly (the canceled TV series the film is based on).

Quick Plot: The crew of Serenity take on a fugitive passenger with surprising capabilities, and her nameless pursuer will stop at nothing to get her back.

In Detail: First, allow me to state that I have never seen a single episode of Firefly, the television show on which this film is based, so I was not sure if I would understand much of what was going on. We followed along just fine. I do think there were parts where I was missing something, and I'm sure there was much subtexting and many subtleties that went right over my head, but overall, it was a very enjoyable ride. This is going to sound ridiculous at first, but I hope you will understand what I mean: it really is more of an action film set in space than a "sci-fi film" per se. And quite a good action flick at that; just turn off your brain and let it ride. The characters are interesting, the dialog is snappy if a little (intentionally) odd in cadence (though many of the best lines were used in the previews; I hate that!), and the fight sequences are exceptionally well filmed, edited, and choreographed (I genuinely believed she was kicking their butts!). You may recall that I was highly critical of the way the fight sequences in Batman Begins were shot. Had it been done this way, it would have rocked the house! Seriously, all action films should take notes from how these fights were done. A few of the plot points had the feel of being a checklist of things that needed to be addressed after the series was abruptly canceled, but as someone who appreciates when film makers pay homage to the source television material, I have no problem with that, and most of it did end up being relevant to the story presented in the film. Truly the best compliment I can give this movie is that it makes me really want to see the television show.

Will I Buy It? I'm thinking about it. I'd like to see it again to decide if it is something we'd watch over and over. It is definitely our kind of film, and if we ever see Firefly, we might be more inclined. It is currently on the "maybe" list.

Addendum: We have since seen the series, Firefly, and it is one of our all time favorite series ever. We watch the whole series (14 episodes) 1-2 times a year, we love it so much. So yes, we bought the movie, though it is much harder to watch now.

Casanova

2006-01-17T13:51:00.001-05:00

In a Nutshell: A fun and entertaining romp, not serious in the slightest, nor is it intended to be. A perfectly pleasant two hours.

Quick Plot: The "semi-true" tale of the legendary lothario and the love of his life.

In Detail: Honestly, there isn't much to say about this film. It is the perfect "cream puff" of a movie. Light, airy, and sweet, with no meat to it whatsoever. I smiled, I laughed, I enjoyed myself. The settings are lovely, the costumes stunning, and the situations are appropriately ridiculous, with a few witty lines for flavor. And one of my personal favorites, Oliver Platt, is his usual over the top self, even if he is virtually unrecognizable, both physically and vocally. Unless you're out of films to see, I wouldn't bother with this one in the theater. It will be just fine on DVD, or better yet, your movie channel of choice. I just wasn't up for anything heavy that night, and this was the perfect confection of a film to suit my tastes at the time.

Will I Buy It? Doubtful.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

2006-01-10T14:46:00.000-05:00

In a Nutshell: Excellent! Far and away the best Potter adaptation to date. Probably a bit too scary/intense for little kids, though.

Quick Plot: Harry is entered into the Tri-Wizard Tournament against his will and must compete not only for the glory of the school, but for his very life.

In Detail: I enjoyed this movie so much, which is surprising since I was very afraid of what would happen to such a long book after all of the slicing and dicing to make it fit into a reasonable (i.e. non-Peter Jackson) film length. They did a remarkable job. Other than the disappointment of not getting to see *any* of the Quidditch World Cup beyond the opening ceremonies, which looked astoundingly awesome, virtually all of the cuts made were appropriate and not really missed (I had a couple of small nitpicks, but that is to be expected, and one cut I did like: thank goodness for no S.P.E.W.!). I must say, Ralph Fiennes plays Voldemort with mesmerizing perfection and conviction. *This* is what we all knew a Harry Potter film could be, though it is probably too much for young viewers. I would not take the average 5 or 6 year old to see this film, that's for sure (it is rated PG-13, after all). Great film! I'm looking forward to the next one.

Will I Buy It? YES! I would have said yes anyway, to keep the series going, but this is the first Potter film that I can say without hesitation that I would buy on its own merits as well.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

2006-01-10T12:51:00.002-05:00

In a Nutshell: Okay. Glorious attention to detail, beautiful to watch, but I ultimately found it a bit boring.

Quick Plot: Four siblings in war-torn England are sent to the country for safety. There, they find a magical realm within a wardrobe in the spare room, ruled by a white witch who is constantly on guard for the four humans who are foretold to end her reign.

In Detail: By now, I'm sure we *all* know that Disney was presenting this film on two fronts, and I am happy to say that it walked the fine line between the two camps very well with this production (probably helped by the fact that Disney is mainly a distributor in this case, not a major producer in anything but the money department). They did not downplay the obvious Christian overtones, nor did they downplay the magical aspects. They presented the story, both "faces" of it, just as it was portrayed in the book; you may read as much or as little into the parallels as you would like in this wonderfully fantastical world. But given that I have read the book (though it was several years ago), and given that it is a Christian allegory, it was way too predictable. I know, many films are now, and what can I expect from a book as old as this one; I also didn't expect it to stray from the book (that would truly have been sacrilege). It just felt plodding and boring, though I'm not sure how that could have been fixed. (Hey, we all knew the boat sank (Titanic) and Anakin became Vader (Sith), but we still went to see those.) Still, it is a good movie, fine for most children, though some of the witch's creatures might be a bit frightening for sensitive little ones at the "table scene" near the end. The make-up and effects were very well done indeed, and the attention to even the smallest detail is fabulous, but in the end, it just wasn't enough for me. I do look forward to future Narnia installments, though. Perhaps I shall enjoy the ones I have not read a bit more.

Will I Buy It? Not just yet. If I like future installments, then I'll go back and pick this one up.

Memoirs of a Geisha

2006-01-10T12:48:00.001-05:00

In a Nutshell: Good. Very beautiful, just not much to it. The book was much more gripping. Would probably have been better if I hadn't read the book.

Quick Plot: Chiyo is sold into slavery as a child. She is sent to geisha school in hopes of recovering the investment in her. Can Chiyo become a famous geisha, wealthy enough to pay her debts and win the man of her dreams?

In Detail: A good movie, just not a great one. Very very beautiful to watch, and you are given plenty of time to look with the slow pace of the film. It is NOT slow in a bad way! Just not action oriented in the slightest, not even the "action scenes;" nothing wrong with that when it is done artfully and intentionally, as is the case here. The casting was suburb! Everyone looked and behaved just as I imagined they would. As I said, it probably would have been better to me had I not read the book. The "reveals" did not have any impact since I knew they were coming; there would have been more play to the heartstrings without the foreknowledge on my part. I will say that I felt sorrier for Hatsumomo in the movie than I did in the book, but not so with Pumpkin. It has been several years since I read the book, but as far as I can recall, it was quite faithful (though admittedly I cannot recall much beyond the major plot points). In all honesty, I was most disappointed in the score. John Williams, Yo Yo Ma, and Itzhak Perlman; what's not to love? I genuinely can't even recall the music at all. Some would say that is the mark of a great movie score, but disappointing from such talented artists. Still, all in all, worth seeing if you like purposefully slow-paced eye candy, but will not lose much on the small screen, I don't think. Not recommended for stereotypical men, as they will most likely be bored out of their skulls.

Will I Buy It? Unlikely.

13 Going on 30

2005-09-27T20:18:00.001-04:00

In a Nutshell: Very cute film, absolutely worth seeing! Jennifer Garner is delightful. Even given its similarities to Tom Hanks' Big, it still has its own charm and its own points to make.

Quick Plot: Jenna makes a wish on her 13th birthday, and wakes up the next day "30, flirty, and thriving." She remembers nothing of the last 17 years, and looks up an old middle school pal to try and figure out what she's been up to, and where she is going in life.

In Detail: I am so glad I finally saw this movie. People kept telling me I would like it, and they were right. Very cute, very sweet, very well done. I was totally amazed by Jennifer Garner. I don't know if this film reflects her personality at all, but I *totally* believed she was looking at the world as though she were 13. Even the nuances of being a "tween" in the 80s were perfectly carried (not surprising, since I guess she was that age in that era). I was also quite charmed by Mark Ruffalo, which makes me much more interested in seeing Just Like Heaven (aka the new Reese Witherspoon movie). A somewhat chick-flick, definitely feel good flick worth watching if you ever get the chance.

Will I Buy It? Perhaps. I don't buy a lot of these types of films, as they do start to get repetitive, and I'm not in the mood to rewatch them often, but this one certainly has potential. We'll see how many times I look into the DVD case and say "I wish we had 13 Going on 30" before I decide.

Red Eye

2005-09-27T14:32:00.001-04:00

In a Nutshell: Very good for a B-movie; not bad for a regular movie even. Worth renting, but don't rush out and see it.

Quick Plot: Lisa just wants to get home to see her dad, and she's rather anxious after her flight to Miami has been seriously delayed. After numerous run-ins with a charming stranger, she discovers she is sitting next to him on the plane. It is not a happy accident. If she does not help him to assassinate a high profile politician before they land, he will have her father killed. But what can she do about it at 30,000 feet?

In Detail: First off, let me dispel what seems to be a common misconception about this film, which stems from a combination of the television commercial and the director. Yes, it is a Wes Craven film. Yes, it is a thriller. But NO, there are not *any* supernatural elements of any kind in this movie. I knew what the film was about before I saw the trailer, so I didn't think anything of it. It was only when my brother commented on being surprised about them just being "normal" people, and then my husband commenting that it "doesn't seem like your kind of movie" that I realized that the television commercial could be misleading if you didn't know the plot, particularly when it is a Craven film. No demons, no "monsters," just your average everyday wacko. ;) Having said all of that, the film is quite tense. Not as tense as War of the Worlds, but well done none the less. I was willing to suspend disbelief until the very end, when things started getting a little out of hand. And one particular element of the ending was quite disappointing. Other than that, I'd say it's worth seeing. Rent it, maybe, or catch it on television, but worth seeing none the less. A fun, brainless, rainy afternoon type flick.

Will I Buy It? No. Worth seeing once. That's about it.

Cellular

2005-09-27T13:41:00.002-04:00

In a Nutshell: Your typical B-movie. (Might have been better if I hadn't *just* seen the much better B-movie Red Eye.) Not great, not bad. Semi-tense, had some humor to it, but other than that, it was just kind-of there.

Quick Plot: Jessica has been kidnapped. Her captors have locked her in a room with a smashed phone. After clicking the wires together, she is connected with Ryan's cell phone. She begs for help, and tries to enlist his help to protect her family. If the connection is lost, so is any chance of rescue.

In Detail: Like I said, it was okay. Not good, not bad; just existing. Kim Basinger gives a much better performance than the material calls for, and it did let me see some of the appeal of Jason Statham (I'm certainly more interested in seeing The Transporter after seeing this film). Chris Evans' performance, on the other hand, was rather goofy. I realize this may have been what the part called for, but interestingly enough, the other parts were played too seriously for his performance to fit in. Even William H. Macy, whose character was a little silly, took his part seriously. Evans treated it like a joy ride. Either everyone should have treated it like that, or Evans should have been a little more serious. I realize it was not an incredibly serious part or film, it was just glaringly out of sync. Might have been better with a different lead, and perhaps a slightly beefed up story line, including a somewhat slower reveal.

Will I Buy It? Nope.

The Forgotten

2005-09-06T19:29:00.002-04:00

In a Nutshell: Certainly keeps your brain on its toes, trying to figure out exactly who is involved, how, and why. A bit disappointed with the resolution, as the "why" part seems to be missing.

Quick Plot: Telly Paretta lost her son in a plane crash 14 months ago. Or so she thought, until everyone around her tells her that she imagined him. She never had a son; she's had a psychotic break. But when she meets the father of another child who was on that plane, and he does (finally) remember his own child, they must discover why everyone else has forgotten.

In Detail: Wow, I was really pumped about this movie. The whole way through, when I got a moment to breathe, all I could think was "if it can just hold on and continue to be this good, I'll be ready to buy the DVD tomorrow." (I was watching it using OnDemand cable, which is way cool, BTW.) And it did. Right up until the end. A taught, tense, emotional psychological thriller, my favorite kind! But the end just fell flat. It's not that I had a problem with the who or the how, it's that the why is never explained, not even a little bit (or if it was, I certainly missed it). Well, I take that back, they did "explain;" I just don't think "because" is a sufficient answer. :p So it was good, and it kept me engaged, and I certainly wanted to know where it was going and how it was going to get there, as well as who all was involved and who wasn't. I'm just a little let down. Worth a cheap rental or catch it on television.

Will I Buy It? No. Really wanted to for most of the film, but not now.

Hitch

2005-08-05T14:41:00.000-04:00

In a Nutshell: I haven't laughed this hard at a comedy, certainly not a rom-com, in ages. Way funnier than it had any right to be, which is one of the best compliments I can give any comedy film.

Quick Plot: Alex Hitchens ("call me Hitch") is a date doctor. Show him a woman, pay him your fee, and give him three dates, and the woman is yours. But when he falls for someone himself, things don't go exactly according to plan.

In Detail: I really like Will Smith. Granted, I haven't seen everything he's done (haven't seen Ali, for one), but everything of his I have seen, I really like, largely due to his role in it. This movie is the perfect vehicle for him. It lets Will Smith be Will Smith, and at his best! As I said, one of the best compliments I can give any comedy film is when it ends up being not only funnier than I thought it would be, but funnier than even the premise or the situations can account for. That means that the actors themselves have made it what it is, and *that* is great comedy. I laughed out loud so many times, I was afraid I was going to wake up the child sleeping in the next room. Not only is Will Smith brilliant, but the main guy he is helping is someone I know. Not really; I don't know the actor. But he is portraying so many of the guys I went to school with (Georgia Tech, for those who don't know), guys I have seen try and fail in just these ways, that it's just priceless. I haven't laughed like that in a long time. Thanks, little brother, for renting that one for me! Definitely a must see.

Will I Buy It? Thinking about it. I need to see it again to see if it would still be funny on multiple viewings.

Addendum: Not only is it still funny, it gets funnier every time we see it. Absolutely had to buy it, and it is now one of my favorite rom-coms of all time.

Madagascar

2005-08-05T12:55:00.000-04:00

In a Nutshell: It has its moments, but the rest of the film is rather boring.

Quick Plot: A quartet of pampered zoo animals (lion, zebra, hippo, giraffe) are off on an adventure in "the wild" and must learn to cope with their new environment, and instincts, while trying to deal with a zany group of island primates.

In Detail: I honestly don't have much to say about this film. First, let me state for the record that I don't care for Shrek. I will pause while several of you pick yourselves up off the floor. It's just not my kind of humor. I sat through virtually the entire film being disgusted, either at what was happening on screen, or at the people who found things funny that (to me) simply were not (or should not have been, IMO). Madagascar didn't have that kind of problem for me, I just didn't find its particular style of humor funny. Ah well. I should have known better, but I wanted to give it a chance. Sadly, the *vast* majority of the good stuff was in the previews, so you only smiled at it in context, instead of being caught off guard and genuinely laughing. (When *will* the studios stop putting the best stuff in the previews?! Save some for the movie.) I appreciated what it was trying to say about friendship and stuff, but I just really didn't care for the movie. And the lemurs (or whatever they are) were just annoying, as was the song. I know some people really liked that part, particularly the children, but after the first time, it just wasn't funny anymore.

Will I Buy It? No.

War of the Worlds (2005)

2005-08-01T19:39:00.002-04:00

In a Nutshell: Worth seeing. Very tense, quite creepy, rather dark, extremely well acted, beautifully shot, stunning special effects. A great ride for the first 90-120 minutes, then falls flat in the last 10.

Quick Plot: A dead-beat dad and his two children try to escape from robotic interstellar invaders intent on exterminating humanity and converting Earth into a planet fit for alien colonization.

In Detail: Well, I liked this film better than DH, and except for the very end, I was rather wowed. So I'll talk about the good points first. But I want to start out by saying that if you are expecting a film like Independence Day (Will Smith, Jeff Goldblum), to which all of the reviews kept comparing this movie, you will be rather surprised. Other than some basic plot similarities, they are NOTHING alike, in tone or in scope. This is not an action/adventure/save the world film with a healthy dose of comedy. It is a very personal drama, haunting and sad. I was also genuinely creeped out, even for a couple of days after, which Spielberg said was one of his goals for the film. With me, at least, he succeeded (which, admittedly, isn't all that difficult). DH agreed with me that it was edge-of-your-seat tense for almost the entire length of the film. It's almost relentless, in an excellent way. Superb acting on the parts of everyone involved, particularly in Tim Robbins' basement (didn't even know he was in the movie until we saw him on screen). Other than one point of "I don't think so" (which falls under my "please follow the rules you have established for your film" annoyance), and the way too pat ending, I thought it was an excellent movie. Or I did when we left the theater. But the more I thought about it afterward, the less and less things made sense, the less and less things stuck to the rules established in the premise of the film, and the less and less I liked it. I now think it is a great ride, and as long as you don't think about it *at all* afterward, you'll be okay. Still worth seeing once, IMO, just for the fantastic acting and effects, but do either a discount theater or rent it.

Will I Buy It? Unlikely.

Star Wars, Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

2005-08-01T15:32:00.002-04:00

In a Nutshell: Better than the other two, but not stellar. Exceptional eye candy, wraps up most of the loose ends, but still leaves a few holes. Not a movie for young children, but definitely to be seen on the big screen if possible.

Quick Plot: The rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker and the rest of the Jedi Knights.

In Detail: Well, it has been almost two months since I've seen this film. My apologies for not reviewing it sooner. I actually saw it twice over Memorial Day weekend, and seeing it twice is almost necessary. The first time, you are just oogling over the visuals, and you also spend a lot of time going "but wait...." The second time, once you have come to terms with how the film did or did not meet your expectations, you can actually take the time to appreciate it for what it is. Too many things happen to quickly for me to find them completely believable, and my perception of how they happened based on limited information to date was really off. There was at least a *touch* of chemistry here and there between Hayden and Natalie, but not much, so don't go expecting a tragic love story. The tragic is there, but much of the love is missing until the very very end. And I must publicly say that if it weren't for Ewan McGregor, the film would have failed miserably.

I think a fair bit of what happened was superfluous and Lucas's time and efforts could have been spent elsewhere, but it is what it is. Oh, and please do not judge General Grievous by this film. He should have been so much more... I don't know; cool, slick, intimidating, powerful, skilled... I could go on and on. To see him at his most awesome, be sure you check out the Cartoon Network series Clone Wars (Volume 1 currently out on DVD, Volume 2 due out in November, IIRC). Definitely worth watching, and you see a lot more of Grievous as he was intended to be. The light saber battle at the end is much closer to the kind of battle that has been missing from the other films, and though it doesn't quite measure up to the ultra-coolness of Darth Maul (Lucas really messed himself up by putting Maul in Ep. I; no way to top that), it has an emotional impact that is undeniable. And once the final battle is over, I cried. Both times. *That* scene broke my heart. I found the wrap-up scenes quite stilted, but necessary, and seeing the old sets come back still makes my heart flutter.

Ultimately, I am slightly dissatisfied with the film, particularly as the ending to the saga (despite technically being part 3 of 6). Some things were too easy, some were too fast, some were to pat. It answered questions, and it was emotionally engaging occasionally, but not enough to make me feel fulfilled. The best of the three, certainly, and a vast improvement over the last one (which had great info and hideous execution). I can't help but wonder how things would have improved under a "real" director. For those who don't know, Lucas only directed Star Wars (that's Ep. IV to you non-purists) himself; he left the other two to other directors. I definitely think this series could have benefited greatly from a similar arrangement. But, what's done is done, and it is worth seeing. Just don't set your sights, or your hopes, too high. May the force be with you.

Will I Buy It? Yes. Did you expect otherwise?

The Interpreter

2005-05-16T19:14:00.001-04:00

In a Nutshell: Eh. It was okay. Rent it if you really feel the need, but I found it neither overly political nor overly thrilling. Wasn't it supposed to be a political thriller? It wasn't bad, it just wasn't good. It was just... there.

Quick Plot: A UN interpreter overhears an assassination plot after hours being discussed in a language that only she and a few other people speak. The Secret Service is finding it difficult to believe her, especially considering that she is less than forthcoming about various aspects of her possible involvement.

In Detail: I really thought this film had potential. I love the psychological Hitchcock-type thrillers, and I felt this one had a good chance, particularly given the setting (the UN), the director (Sydney Pollack), and the leads (Kidman and Penn). It had all the right pieces, they just didn't work for some reason. I'm not quite sure how the whole can add up to be less than the sum of its parts, but it did. I think they tried very hard to be politically correct, which took out any possible political punch of this self-styled political thriller. Fine by me, though, as I'm not a very political person, and I rarely enjoy those types of films. But, I also felt that Nicole Kidman came off very cold, which didn't allow me to connect with her or, ultimately, feel much concern for her. Hard to get worked up about the fate of someone you don't care about. Same for Sean Penn; I didn't really care about his character either, no matter how tragic they tried to make him. There was also no chemistry between them, so even the possible tension aspect was lost, in spite of attempts to allude to it. I think that was ultimately the main problem with the film: I just didn't care about any of the characters. It was also a very slowly paced film. Now, this in and of itself is not bad, but combined with little action, flat characters, and a plot that tried too hard not to offend, I was left simply *watching* the film, without really being engaged on any level, and even being rather bored in places. I can't really even say that it's worth seeing. I just found it quite blah. As I said, it wasn't bad, but it wasn't good.

Will I Buy It? No.

Sahara

2005-05-04T15:43:00.002-04:00

In a Nutshell: Fun flick, but nothing spectacular. Great banter between the two male leads. Definitely worth seeing, though no blockbuster effects that absolutely require the theater, if you'd like to wait until DVD. "They did a Panama." :-p

Quick Plot: A professional treasure hunter, I mean, deep sea discoverer, finds clues to his pet project in Africa. Can he really find a long lost Confederate ironside ship in the middle of the dessert, especially without getting killed?

In Detail: I really rather liked this movie, quite a bit more so that DH. Well, I mean, two hours of clean-cut muscles-cut Matthew McConaughey, how bad can it be, right? LOL It was just loads of fun. That's not to say that it wasn't missing something. First off, there was too much luck and not enough skill/solving involved. As this movie has been compared to National Treasure, I will say that NT has the upper hand here. I missed that aspect of it. Second, there was absolutely NO explanation as to how the boat would have gotten there in the first place. I don't think that is an unreasonable question. And lastly, the whole "put the woman in peril so she can be rescued" subplot just seemed tacked on, as opposed to integrated in. They tried, it just wasn't very smooth. Not sure if the book does better or not. However, I felt when watching National Treasure that it was missing.... something. Something I was never able to put my finger on. But whatever it was that NT was missing, Sahara had it. Something about the chemistry and the camaraderie and the banter that was just incredibly enthralling. If you could have combined the two films, you would have had just about the *perfect* summer popcorn flick, ranking right up there with Indiana Jones. Sahara doesn't quite make it, though with some improvements, the next film in the franchise could (oh come now, you know they'll do it, if it makes a single nickle of profit). Looking forward to the next installment.

Will I Buy It? I'd like to, for a reasonable price (under $15,
I'd say). Not sure if DH will agree, though.

The Bourne Supremacy

2005-01-17T20:50:00.002-05:00

In a Nutshell: The next film in the Jason Bourne saga, this one has an interesting story, if less effective execution, though I'm not sure why it was slightly less entertaining than the original. Worth renting for fans of the first one.

Quick Plot: Treadstone is gone, but Jason Bourne still lives, and someone wants him eliminated. Bourne is willing to keep running, until they cross the line. In order to survive and hopefully clear his name, Bourne must take on the government and his former Treadstone foes, returning to his operative ways.

In Detail: The story here is rather interesting. I thought
Treadstone has been reinstated from the previews, but this is not the case. Instead, Joan Allen is put in charge of the investigation, in which two of her own operatives were killed. She is an effective investigator; she wants the truth, not just revenge. And the truth she finds is rather interesting. I love the interactions between her character and Bourne, and the story does go in some interesting directions. But it just didn't seem as good to me, and I can't really say why. The chase scene was lesser, that's for sure (LOVED the first one). The acting was fine for this type of film, the story was better, but it was still.... lacking some how. Worth renting if you liked the first one.

Will I Buy It? No, it doesn't quite make the cut. Glad I saw it, don't care to see it again.

The Aviator

2005-01-17T19:04:00.002-05:00

In a Nutshell: Well filmed, well acted, beautiful costuming, very enjoyable, definitely worth seeing.

Quick Plot: Bio-pic of Howard Hughes spanning his early successes and his mid-life breakdown. Certainly a brilliant and innovative man, despite his eventual madness.

In Detail: I really enjoyed this film. I wasn't sure what I would get. I'm not a huge fan of Martin Scorsese films anyway (the subject matter rarely appeals to me), so I was concerned, particularly with it being 2 hours and 45 minutes long. It certainly didn't feel that way though. I have no idea how accurate any of the facts are (we all know how reliable Hollywood version facts are), but if even half of what is portrayed is the truth, then he was a truly visionary man decades ahead of his time. As for the film itself, I think the casting was inspired, most especially Cate Blanchett as Katherine Hepburn. However, in a way, by casting so many well known people, it is hard sometimes to get past who the actor is and down to the performance. Some of this is a function of what could have been better acting, but some is purely the visual of such recognizable people in relatively one-dimensional roles. Take Cate Blanchett, for instance. Many have put down her performance as lacking depth, but I disagree. To have attempted to portray someone as famous as "Kate" accurately would have been difficult, and she would have been dogged for her inaccuracies. To instead do her up as a bit of a caricature, she captured the essence without detracting from DiCaprio's performance. DiCaprio, for the most part, does transcend his recognizability, but it pops up every now and then, particularly during the "isolationist" period of the film. Overall, though, his performance is excellent. Having seen virtually no Scorsese films, I don't know if this is a trademark of his or not, but I did also want to comment on the use of silence in this film. In an era where louder is better, the periods of quiet in this movie are amazing. "Listen" for them, if you see it; it is incredibly effective at saying all there is to say.

Sorry, I'm not usually so "formal" and heavy-handed with my reviews, but this film certainly deserved it. I wasn't thinking that it necessarily deserved a potential Oscar nomination (or Golden Globe win) for Best Picture, but rereading my observations above, perhaps it really does.

Will I Buy It? It is *worth* buying, but I know I wouldn't watch it a whole lot, so no. Absolutely worth seeing, though would lose very little on DVD (except a couple of remarkable surround sound sequences for those of us not home-equipped).

King Kong (2005)

2005-01-17T13:25:00.001-05:00

In a Nutshell: Too long. The good parts were very good, and the rest of it wasn't bad in any way, there was just too much of it all the way around.

Quick Plot: A 1930s film crew searches for the mysterious Skull Island and its strange inhabitants, and find the giant gorilla called Kong. After kidnapping the beautiful star of the film, the ape is captured and transported to New York City, with disastrous results.

In Detail: First, please let me say that this is not a bad movie. It was just badly edited, or should I say, not edited at all. It is 3 hours long, no joke, and that does NOT include any commercials or previews. If there is a "director's cut" of this film, I might have to faint. An hour could *easily* have been cut out (dinosaurs *and* giant bugs, was that really necessary?), perhaps even an additional 15-30 minutes if you wanted to be a little more ruthless. Parts of it were so well done, so glorious, it is a shame it had to be dragged down by the excess footage. I think the biggest problem it has is that Peter Jackson wasn't sure what kind of movie he wanted, fun action or dramatic and heartfelt, so he tried to make both, and ended up making neither very well. What a shame. Either would have been excellent, but both together just didn't work. The film never settled on a rhythm or pace. You never knew if the next scene would be heart-wrenching or silly, so you were never fully comfortable in the world he presented. The effects were phenomenal in almost every aspect, and my hat is completely off to Naomi Watts, who did a mighty chunk of her work acting with *nothing* but a green screen and a ball on a stick for eye line purposes. Simply amazing acting from that perspective. But that alone could not make this film all that it was intended to be. Worth seeing, on the big screen if you are really interested (the effects may suffer on smaller televisions), just not the spectacular tribute we were all hoping for.

Will I Buy It? Unlikely.

The Terminal

2004-12-05T20:06:00.001-05:00

In a Nutshell: Sweet movie, worth renting, but not as great as I was expecting.

Quick Plot: A man whose country implodes while he is in flight is stranded at the airport for almost a year. He may not enter New York City to continue his trip, nor may he return home. Instead, he must make the best life he can inside the terminal.

In Detail: Definitely had the feel of an older type movie, but it was strangely less satisfying. It was also much more dramatic and less funny than I thought it would be, which may have thrown me some, since it is not what I was expecting. Most of the humorous moments were shown in the previews. And Stanley Tucci, who I usually find hilarious in his gruff over-the-top style, I instead found mean and unsympathetic. Such a shame. A sweet story, some great moments, worth seeing, but I'm glad we rented it instead of seeing it in the theater.

Will I Buy It? I don't think so.

National Treasure

2004-12-05T13:16:00.001-05:00

In a Nutshell: Quite good Jerry Bruckheimer fare. All of his usual style and flair, with the added incentive of a mystery to solve. Check your brain at the door and just enjoy this fun popcorn flick.

Quick Plot: The Gates family has been following the trail of the mythical Free Mason treasure the US founding fathers hid more than two centuries ago, much to the amusement of the scholarly community. But when someone else plans to find it and keep it for himself, Ben Gates and team decide to beat them to the punch.

In Detail: I really liked this movie. About par for the course as far as Jerry Bruckheimer films go (not as good as Pirates, way better than King Arthur), which is just fine. I am quite a fan of his films, generally speaking. I liked that this one had the mystery aspect to it. Definitely reminiscent of The Goonies(for all you children of the 80s), but with less language! LOL A perfectly fun brainless film, with some great one liners. Would do fine on the small screen if you want to wait, but definitely worth seeing, even in the theater if you're an action junkie. Great fun!

Will I Buy It? I'm leaning towards yes. I won't run right out to buy it when it comes out, but if I happen to find it for under $15, I'd probably pick it up.

The Incredibles

2004-11-11T19:33:00.001-05:00

In a Nutshell: WOW!! Just WOW!! It was, well.... (sheepish grin) it was incredible!! I don't know what else to say. Oh yes I do: GO SEE IT!!

Quick Plot: Mr. Incredible and his wife Elastigirl are no longer a part of the "super" life, instead having spent the last 15 years raising three kids and trying to teach them to be "normal." But now, 15 years later, it is time to save the world again.

In Detail: Okay, I realize that plot summary stank, but I don't want to give *anything* away. I'm really not going to tell you much about the film, other than it is excellent and you truly must see it. As DH said, often animated films are okay to good movies, but the animation and the humor elevate them to excellent. But in this case, the movie itself is truly exceptional to start with; then you add in awesome visuals (stay for at least some of the credits, too), several great homages (I'll have to see it a few more times to catch them all; come on DVD!), and some first rate ROTLF humor (honey, where is my super-suit?), and you get a move that is, well, incredible! Just go see it. You won't be sorry!

Will I Buy It? Heck yeah! I'm ready to pre-order it right now!!!

Spider-Man 2

2004-07-21T15:40:00.001-04:00

In a Nutshell: Definitely worth seeing. Most of the individual elements were better, but the editing/pacing was *way* off, which detracted greatly.

Quick Plot: When Peter's idol becomes fused to four robotic arms, mayhem abounds. The situation is complicated by Peter's struggle with the choice of pursuing MJ or continuing as Spidey.

In Detail: Okay, so that was a sorry plot summary. Please forgive me. It's just rather hard to sum up well. First, let me say that the opening credits are awesome! I really really liked them. As I mentioned, most of the individual film elements were better than the original. The whole film was visually more stunning, with better (and less obvious, which is always better!) special effects. I liked the layout of the love story better (not great, but better), I liked the villain better (I could relate to him and feel sympathy for him). But the pacing of the film and the weaving together of the story elements (love story, humor elements, to Spidey or not to Spidey, Harry, Doc Ock) were TERRIBLE!!! How can a film where all the piece parts were better still feel unsatisfying? And how can a movie with such great action sequences feel slow? So I'm feeling rather conflicted about the film. I'd definitely rank it above the first Spidey (which I don't love), but probably below X-Men (both of them). Definitely worth seeing, but a little unsatisfying in the end (unless you go prepared, which I'm hoping this review will accomplish).

Will I Buy It? Probably. It's mainly up to DH. I do think I'd be more likely to watch this one more than the previous one (I just love Alfred Molina!).

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

2004-07-21T15:06:00.000-04:00

In a Nutshell: Somewhat disappointing to this lover of the book, particularly as this is my favorite book in the series. Worth seeing, I guess, but not as good of a movie (story-wise) as the second one.

Quick Plot: Sirius Black has escaped from Azkaban prison with one thought on his mind: kill Harry Potter.

In Detail: I know, I am dreadfully late with this review, but I figure anyone who really wanted to see it would have seen it anyway, and anyone who wasn't sure probably wouldn't have been persuaded to see it based on my rather poor review of the film, so in the long run, it probably didn't make any difference, unless you were dying of curiosity regarding my opinion of the film. :p You got all that? LOL Anyway, as I mentioned above, I found the film, overall, to be disappointing. Visually, I liked the film better, and the acting itself was better (hey, the kids are getting older and they have more experience now; I *hope* they're getting better). But with all of the edits they had to/chose to make to the story itself, it seemed to fall a bit flat. This perception is not helped by the fact that this is far and away my favorite *book* in the series, so it had a lot to live up to for me to be happy. However, given that DH (a non-reader) was even a little confused after seeing the film and I had to explain several things (including the tell-tale question "so *what* was up with those Dementor things?"), this tells me that the filmmakers did not succeed in their objectives of relaying the story well, at all. (For heaven's sake! You should know all about the Dementors by the end of that book, I mean movie.) They also took out a few points that I feel were totally key and that made the story "magical." The book has a lot of thinking/internal type elements, so I realize it was difficult to translate to the screen. Not a bad movie, but not as great as it could have/should have been.

Will I Buy It? Seeing as we already have the first two, I'm leaning towards yes, but if the films don't start improving from this point (and I find it hard to believe they can, since they intend to chop down the massive book 4 into a single 2 hour film), I will find it difficult to continue to purchase them. That is, of course, until I decide that my child needs a new film to watch, because I'm tired of seeing the same ones over and over and over and.... :)

I, Robot

2004-07-21T14:10:00.002-04:00

In a Nutshell: Surprisingly good! After my other summer disappointments, I wasn't expecting much from it, and I came away really enjoying it. Not the greatest film ever, but really quite good. Definitely worth seeing, and definitely on the big screen!

Quick Plot: On the eve of the largest robot roll out in history, the "father of robotics" commits suicide, leaving his friend, the robot-phobic police officer, to investigate if it really was suicide, or if he was murdered by one of his own creations.

In Detail: (Note: I have never read, nor am I familiar with, the Asimov stories that "suggested" this film, and I am an admitted sci-fi junkie. Take this review with those particular grains of salt in mind.) Unlike Spider-Man 2, this film was *beautifully* paced. It flowed smoothly between story elements, and you really ride the adrenaline waves. Unlike King Arthur, the humor here was not only surprising (all the previews I had seen made it seem really serious), but it was perfectly timed and executed, bringing huge laughs. That's not to say that the movie isn't serious and/or doesn't have serious points to make. It is and it does, and it does indeed make them, but it doesn't do it in a preachy or heavy-handed manner. It just makes you go hmmm. The humor is well-placed for effect, usually tension release, which you need after some of the intense action sequences. Much of the film is CG, but I did not find it distracting. Every once in a while, the thought of "wow, that was amazing; too bad none of it was real" crossed my mind, but that's it, and I don't mean that in a bad way. It's not an overly deep movie, though it does have its moments. But I greatly enjoyed it nonetheless.

Will I Buy It? Not sure. That may seem strange after the above review, but I think I need to see it again (rented, most likely) to decide if there is enough to keep me interested on repeat viewings. Definitely worth seeing, though!

Addendum: After seeing this one a couple more times on television and finding it on sale for a great price, we did decide to buy it.

King Arthur

2004-07-21T13:38:00.001-04:00

In a Nutshell: Not great, not bad; just another somewhat disappointing film. (This seems to be a trend of my summer film viewing of late.) Could definitely wait to be rented, IMO. This is especially surprising when you consider that I usually at least *like* Jerry Bruckheimer films.

Quick Plot: A more historical view (note I did *not* say "accurate") of the Arthurian legend, set just as Rome prepares to pull out of the British Isles, leaving the locals to fend for themselves against the ruthless invading Saxons.

In Detail: This film just falls very flat, at almost every turn. It is very heavy, quite different in that aspect from most Bruckheimer films. It does make some attempts at humor, but each and every attempt fails miserably. Most don't even bring a smile. There was no spark whatsoever between Arthur and Guinevere. Sure, he was interested in her, but it was more from a curiosity and intellectual perspective. I did feel some of the bond between Arthur and his knights, but I really didn't care too much about most of them or their fates. How very sad. They did work in some of the elements of the "classic" story in a convincing way (where you could see perhaps how the legendary elements came about, similar to the way Troy handled such things), but there were very few. Quite a letdown, given all the hype. Honestly, I think it hyped itself up to the point that there was no saving it from a fall, but it's still not a great movie. Rent it if you feel like seeing it, or catch it at the dollar theater. Certainly don't pay more than matinee price.

Will I Buy It? No.

Troy

2004-06-02T19:52:00.000-04:00

In a Nutshell: Worth seeing once. Pretty well written, fairly well acted, kept my attention. Some excellent eye candy, and the special effects weren't bad either.

Quick Plot: Paris, Prince of Troy, steals the Queen of Sparta from her husband (quite with her permission). The King goes to his brother, who hires Achilles, the greatest warrior ever, to lead the war for her return.

In Detail: I'm glad I saw it, but I don't think I care to see it again. It was borderline on some of the things I don't like about rated R films, but didn't actually cross any of said lines (like violence). Honestly, the thing I disliked the most about the film was the lack of characters for whom I felt sympathy. Hector was the only one I really felt sorry for; the rest of them pretty much deserved what they got. But that was the story, I suppose, no real fault of the film-makers. Some of the acting did involve some eye-rolling. They just can't pull off those cheesy lines the way they used to. But all in all, a pretty good film, worth seeing.

Will I Buy It? I don't think so. There just isn't enough in it, for me personally, to want to watch it over and over.

Van Helsing

2004-06-02T19:46:00.002-04:00

In a Nutshell: Quite an interesting story, pretty good execution, with a couple of "I don't think so" moments (even for this die-hard fantasty and sci-fi fan). I wouldn't recommend it for everyone, but monster movie fans (old and new) will probably enjoy it. I would not, however, recommend it for young children, as the monsters do tend towards the frightening.

Quick Plot: Van Helsing, famed monster-hunter, goes to Transylvania to try and save the last remaining members of the Valerious family from eternal damnation, and he hopes to discover some of the secrets of his forgotten past in the process.

In Detail: I really did enjoy the story. It was a very intriguing and convincing way to have all of these classic monster characters interacting with each other, and they even managed to throw in a twist or two on your expectations. Quite refreshing, actually. The problem is that the execution just didn't *quite* live up to the story. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't as good as it could have been, which I always find frustrating. Even the effects, done by the legendary ILM, did not seem to be up to their usual standards. It did, however, make me wonder if they had done it intentionally, to a certain extent, to keep them from being so scary as to pull an R rating (kind-of the same way they did the effects in the Harry Potter films by making them slightly cartoonish). Worth seeing if you like the genre, but I don't recommend it for everyone.

Will I Buy It? Again, I don't think so. There were too many parts that even I didn't watch (you know me and scary movies; I spent some time admiring the ceiling), and I'd rather not own a film that I can't watch several minutes of. It was good, it was interesting; once was enough.

Hellboy

2004-04-15T14:38:00.000-04:00

In a Nutshell: Most of it was pretty good, but a really crummy ending left me feeling deflated. Not a bad "fluff" popcorn flick, though.

Quick Plot: A demon from another realm is raised by a paranormal scientist to fight evil in this world. When the being who released him many years prior reappears, will Hellboy fight him and save the day, or join him and bring about the apocalypse.

In Detail: See what I mean? Didn't that last sentence of the plot summary make you just roll your eyes? They did really well for 80 minutes or so! Really, they did. I was into the story. Given the framework they had established, the story was plausible, even interesting. It has some unexpectedly touching moments, and plenty of great one-liners. Then comes the grand finale, and too much happened that didn't make sense, was not sufficiently explained, or was just down right stupid. There were several plot holes (during the "good parts" even) that I feel could have been solved by just a couple of sentences of explanation. With just a little more polish (and a significantly better ending), it could have been very good. As is, it's just pretty good. Worth a rental for sure, I'd say, and not a bad big screen flick for comic and sci-fi fans who need something to tide them over until Van Helsing, as long as you're prepared for the ending.

Will I Buy It? I don't know. I'm guessing no, but I may need to see it again to decide if the good parts outweigh the silly excuse for an ending.

Addendum: We did indeed end up buying this movie. We like it more than it deserves, and it was on great sale.

Big Fish

2004-01-16T20:45:00.002-05:00

In a Nutshell: Wow. I was so surprised by this movie. I was just expecting it to be okay, and it was exceptional! And I don't even *like* Tim Burton! Just go see it.

Quick Plot: A son tries to reconnect with his sick father, after years of having to tolerate Dad's "big fish" stories.

In Detail: Just wow. This is truly one of the best movies I have seen in quite some time. I wasn't even going to see it; I really don't like Tim Burton films. But my brother convinced me that it wasn't a typical Tim Burton (like Edward Scissorhands ::shudder::), and that he really thought I'd like it. And he was so right! Thanks little bro. This movie was fun and funny and fantastical and fulfilling all at the same time (and no, I didn't try to get all those words in there, it just worked out that way). Yes, it's a little strange, but in a good way, and it actually makes sense within the context of the film. It is also very moving; if you're a crier, take tissue (I only had one or two tears, but there was lots of sniffling and a couple of borderline sobs in the theater). Just a great great film. I'm trying not to say too much about it, because I don't want to ruin anything. Just see it, you won't be sorry.

Will I Buy It? Most likely.

Peter Pan (2003)

2004-01-16T14:45:00.001-05:00

In a Nutshell: Well, I liked it, but I also understand why it is not doing well at all. To borrow from my husband, "it's too childish for adults and too adult for children." (He's going to start charging me for those, or at least requiring co-writing credits.) By attempting to do both, it doesn't fully please either group. What a shame.

Quick Plot: Does anyone really not know this story by now? Oh, okay. The time has come for young Wendy to "grow up" and leave the nursery. But she doesn't want to; she wants to stay a teller and believer of stories to her siblings forever. And when the star of her many adventures, Peter Pan, comes to take her away to Neverland, where she will never have to grow up, she jumps at the chance, but comes to learn of the things she'll miss by staying a child forever.

In Detail: I really did like this movie. It was genuine and heartfelt, and beautiful to watch. But, let me reiterate: it's too childish for adults, and too adult for children. If they had gone fully in the adult direction, it would have been truly fantastic (well, to me), but how do you market Peter Pan to adults? It's almost impossible. As it is, they tried to please both groups, and instead, I think both groups leave unsatisfied. But personally, I really liked it, and I thought it was good to very good. The parrot was just, I don't know, creepy, and I hated Tinkerbell. But the interactions between Peter and Wendy were fabulous. Totally reminded me of what it's like to have a crush when you're 10 years old. Sensual, yet still innocent, without being sexual. Lots of parents are saying that the film is too sensual, but I think it rides that very fine line perfectly.

I'm about to jump into the deep end here (something I generally try to avoid, especially here), but hang with me, okay? The whole story has always been a metaphor for sexual awakening anyway, whether parents wanted to believe that or not (thank you Disney). If you go to Neverland, not only do you never grow up, you never mature, in all forms, not just getting a boring job or "acting proper" or whatever. By not staying, Wendy accepts her move from "the nursery" into the adult world, along with all that implies. And yes, I'm sure it is uncomfortable for parents to watch two pre-teens kiss (I'll let you know after I have my own kids), but it is very chaste and age-appropriate, and pre-teens *do* kiss, pretty much just like that in most cases (don't freak out, Mom and Dad, I was not one who experienced it personally). I found it to be very beautiful and moving, both the kiss and the film itself (well, once you got past some of the slapstick parts). And let me tell you, the boy who plays Peter is every 10-year-old-girl's dream! Such a cutie-pie. ::sigh:: Oh to be that young again.... Anyway, definitely worth seeing, though quite a bit more violent and eerie than I expected. Our theater even had it marked as PG-13 (though technically rated PG by the MPAA), and I'm not so sure I disagree. It's certainly borderline, so keep that in mind before showing it to very young viewers. Will do fine in the theater or as a rental.

Will I Buy It? I'm definitely considering it.

Home on the Range

2004-01-15T14:31:00.000-05:00

In a Nutshell: Don't bother, unless you are desperate for a film you can see with your children. Extremely disappointing.

Quick Plot: Three cows try to save their farm from foreclosure by capturing an outlaw and collecting the bounty.

In Detail: ::just shakes her head:: Most of you know that I am a *huge* Disney fan. So what does it tell you when I have no idea what to say about this movie beyond disappointing. I was not engaged in the story at all, and I was not impressed with the music (though the singing itself was pretty good). It really just started and stopped. I didn't understand much of the motivation of the characters, and most peculiar for a Disney film, I found many of the characters miscast voice-wise. It was just a very surreal experience to leave any Disney movie so disappointed. Rent it if you have to, but otherwise don't even bother. This is definitely the final nail in the coffin (for a while, at least) for Disney "hand-drawn" animation. ::sigh::

Will I Buy It? I sincerely don't know. I'm not even sure it's worth it for the continuity of my Disney collection. That should tell you all you need to know about my opinion of this film. :(

Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

2003-12-18T13:35:00.001-05:00

In a Nutshell: Very good. Not quite as good as Fellowship, but infinitely better than Towers. Certainly didn't feel like 3.5 hours, that's for sure.

Quick Plot: Do you really need one? Frodo and Sam are off to destroy the ring, Aragorn must lead the race of men to victory over the Orcs and the forces of Sauron.

In Detail: Quite good, if a little confusing for non-readers (like myself; no stone-throwing, please, I'll get to it one day). I have some serious timeline issues with how it all works out, but it does work out, in some highly unexpected ways. I think the absolute best compliment I can give is that it sure didn't feel like it was 3.5 hours long. It held my interest, it rarely slowed to the point of checking a watch (which I did twice, I think), and there is really no good place to go to the restroom, so don't drink *anything* before going to see it.

Will I Buy It? Yep.

Down With Love

2003-12-10T13:13:00.001-05:00

In a Nutshell: Visually wonderful, fairly cute story. Fairly good, I'd say.

Quick Plot: Barbara Novak has written a book, teaching women to be like men in the bedroom department (all fun, no emotional commitment). Catcher Block (ladies man, man's man, man about town) is a journalist determined to make the scoop of the year by proving that Ms. Novak needs love, too, by making her fall for him.

In Detail: This movie was quite fun. It starts off rather slow, and it is by no means a great movie, but if you love the classic "pillow talk" type films, you'll find this one quite entertaining. It is visually stunning, but I love the classic 50s/60s style to begin with. So fun! Both Ewan McGregor and Renee Zelweger can deliver those wonderfully corny lines with enough tongue in cheek (pun intended) to pull them off. Both the dialog and the pace of the film picks up 30-45 minutes through, with one amazing soliloquy by Renee near the end. Worth seeing if you like the old Doris Day films. It is quite over the top in many places (similar to Soapdish in some ways), but it is intended to be, so just take it with a grain of salt.

Will I Buy It? I can't decide. It was a lot of fun, but I didn't love it. I would probably buy it if I found it for a good price, perhaps previewed.

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World

2003-12-10T13:02:00.001-05:00

In a Nutshell: Boring! Some good acting, but not enough plot to make me care.

Quick Plot: Captain Aubrey is on the hunt for a French vessel that has managed to corner him twice, barely escaping each time. All hands hope the third time's the charm as they go after the French ship again.

In Detail: There is really no detail to give. It's like a study of what sailing/the British Navy was like back then. It has some nice moments, and some really fine acting, but there was virtually no story. I found it very boring, and so did my husband (so it's not just that it was a "guy movie"; I tend to like "guy movies" anyway, but not this one). Rent it if you feel you must see it, but otherwise, don't bother.

Will I Buy It? No.

The Animatrix

2003-11-10T20:36:00.000-05:00

In a Nutshell: Different. Interesting. Not sure I liked it, but worth seeing if you're a Matrix fan. NOT for children.

Quick Plot: Nine animated shorts, in all styles from virtually photo-realistic CG to almost static black and white graphics, that relate to the Matrix, sometimes via backstory, sometimes expanding on other concepts. An interesting experiment.

In Detail: Basically, the Wachowski Brothers had some "aside" type things relating to The Matrix and its story, so they gave the 8 stories (one is in two parts) to different people and said "here, animate this." As a fan of animation in general, it was truly fascinating to see the different styles. Each is as different from the other as night and day. Some styles I liked, some I didn't. Some stories I liked, some I didn't. But it was a very interesting experiment. It certainly does things to "expand the universe," so to speak, though I think I liked most of the backstory I had made up in my head better, so be prepared for that.

Will I Buy It? Probably not.

The Matrix Revolutions

2003-11-10T13:04:00.000-05:00

In a Nutshell: It's a semi-good action flick. Expecting something deep, or some answers? Don't bother.

Quick Plot: Picks up exactly where the previous film left off, with Neo and Bane in comas and Zion under attack.

In Detail: When I walked out of the theater after seeing this film the first time, I had no idea what to say about it. Even my husband commented, "I don't envy you trying to write *that* up." After seeing it a second time, I am able to wrap some words around it, even if they are inadequate to express how I feel. The ultimate verdict: Extremely disappointing final chapter to what should have been an awesome trilogy. At this point, I would rather them have just left it with the original Matrix film. I wasn't overly impressed with Reloaded, except with the last few minutes. The conversation with The Architect truly saved it. I was hoping that Revolutions would continue with such a promising and wonderfully complex philosophy, and perhaps give us a few answers in the process. Instead, Revolutions seems to have dumped any depth it possibly could have had (except the train station scene with the Indian family) in favor of becoming a testosterone-driven action flick. How sad. And even then, it wasn't a very good one. Don't get me wrong, the Battle for Zion is *awesome.* There is no other word for it. Visually stunning, with plenty of action. But as an action film, the non-action parts flopped. So it was neither a good action film, nor a good Matrix film. It ignored too many of its own parameters and constructs to close the deal. I'm embarrassed to admit that, at this point, I liked Reloaded better, and I wasn't all that kind to it the first time around. (I saw it again on Saturday, and it's growing on me. Not sure if that's because it's growing on me, or if it's just better than Revolutions.) Did I just miss something? Perhaps my friend Kelli, the philosophy major, could shed some light, because I think the film is missing a whole heck of a lot! As long as you see it with the understanding that it's an action flick with a momentary lapse of insight and a good bit of other pointless stuff, you will probably like it better than I did.

I would like to say a quick word about seeing this film in IMAX format. WOW! The movie was still so-so, but when they talk about "the IMAX experience," they are not kidding. The clarity of the film is jaw-dropping. You could see the texture on the olive in a martini glass, for goodness sake. I was truly amazed. And I hadn't realized how astounding IMAX surround sound is. I caught myself looking over my shoulder occasionally, it was that believable. It was expensive ($11.50, compared to the usual $8.50, or $6.50 matinee), but ultimately worth it, I think. It was the first time I tried seeing a "standard" film converted to IMAX, and I was very pleased. Not something I would spend that kind of money on for every film, but for the special ones, definitely worth it!

Will I Buy It? Undecided. I can't be any more specific than that at this point.

Addendum: We have decided to pretend that only the first Matrix film exists, no others.

Brother Bear

2003-11-03T20:58:00.000-05:00

In a Nutshell: I wanted to love it, but I didn't. Still good though.

Quick Plot: Kenai, an Inuit young man in search of vengeance for his brother, is transformed by the spirits into a bear so that he may "walk a mile in his enemy's shoes," so to speak, and Koda (an abandoned cub) tags along. But Kenai's other brother is also seeking vengeance, and assumes Bear-Kenai is the enemy.

In Detail: A beautiful film, to be sure, eh? The Aurora Borealis animation is fantastic. I especially liked the "Great Spirits" song segment, sung by Tina Turner. Beyond that, it was just, well, okay. I really wanted to love this film, and I didn't. Liked it, yes, but not love. Sadly, most of the best stuff, you've seen in the trailers. Beyond the stunning visuals (with extensive multi-plane camera use, yay!), the story is just a touch blah. Fine for kids, I think. Worth seeing, but perhaps with slightly lower expectations. If you like ending Kodas, I mean codas, stay through the credits.

Will I Buy It? Most likely. You know I'm a Disney nut!

Runaway Jury

2003-11-03T14:35:00.001-05:00

In a Nutshell: It's a Grisham. Good, keeps your interest, not spectacular.

Quick Plot: A high profile case in New Orleans draws the top jury consultant in the nation to insure victory for the defense, but another party "owns" a jury member, and is willing to push the verdict either way, for a price.

In Detail: It was a Grisham, which means it is bound to be entertaining and tense. It also means that it is unlikely to be spectacular, and this wasn't. My two favorite Grisham films are The Client and The Pelican Brief. The ending here, while a surprise, just seemed to be a bit of a let down. I was geared up for something much more. I'd say worth seeing, but rent it.

Will I Buy It? Doubtful.

Love Actually

2003-11-03T13:40:00.001-05:00

In a Nutshell: Fun cast, great cameos (especially The President). Quite good! The kind of non-traditional rom-com I like.

Quick Plot: The intertwined lives (and loves) of couples and singles at Christmas.

In Detail: Not as good as Playing By Heart (if you haven't seen this film, go rent it right now!), but still very well done. The lives were actually not quite as intertwined as I would have liked, but enough people touched enough others to keep it interesting. Probably all within Six Degrees of Kevin Bac.... er, Separation, but I didn't check. Left one loose end, which I found frustrating. Even if it wasn't wrapped up neatly (fine, given the circumstances), it should have been mentioned at the end, I think. And Sam, the little boy, steals the *entire* movie!

Will I Buy It? Not sure. I'll have to think about it a little more.

Out of Time

2003-10-13T15:16:00.001-04:00

In a Nutshell: Great suspense flick! The previews are slightly misleading, but it works around that nicely.

Quick Plot: Matt Whitlock, chief of police in Banyan Key, Florida, is trying to solve a murder. To use the tag line for the film (which sums it up nicely): "How do you solve a murder when all the evidence points to you?"

In Detail: I haven't seen a really good suspense film in a long time. To me, there is a difference in a thriller and a suspense film. A thriller relies on both suspense as well as "jumpy surprises" and making you feel a little creepy. A suspense film, on the other hand, is actually harder to do well. You have to keep the "will he make it? can he figure it out? how will he get out of/around this?" going much longer, plus put in several (hopefully clever) red herrings. The misdirection in this case was a little lacking; I had it figured out even before the murder happened. The suspense, however, was quite well done. Lots of fun! If you're going to see it, do so in the theater. Suspense films are always better in a large group.

Will I Buy It? Probably not. It was good, but I don't think it would stand up as well to repeat viewings.

Roman Holiday

2003-10-13T14:22:00.001-04:00

In a Nutshell: Is there really a more perfect film? Simply wonderful!

Quick Plot: Princess Ann is tired of royal life. After a whirlwind tour of Europe, she runs away to try and experience something of the "real world" while in Rome. But unbeknownst to her, the man who offers to show her around is an American reporter, hoping for the scoop of the decade.

In Detail: How can a movie get better than this? Audrey Hepburn (in her film debut) and Gregory Peck. That should be enough to cause you to run out and see this movie right now. The story is sweet and charming, and even manages to rise above it's 1950s sanitizing to be very "real." We've all had an experience like this, where duty (or morals) leads us away from something we want. Just a wonderful wonderful film! I'm ashamed it took me this long to see it.

Will I Buy It? Yep!

Funny Girl

2003-10-13T13:21:00.000-04:00

In a Nutshell: No doubt about how Streisand became a star, with this as her first film. A touching story with some wonderful humor and fabulous songs.

Quick Plot: Fannie Brice has taken Broadway by storm, but her personal life has been a little stormy. Follow her journey from unwanted chorus girl to "Mr. Ziegfield is waiting" diva....

In Detail: I'm very glad I actually got to see this movie, and on the big screen no less. Quite the showwoman is Ms. Streisand. The story is pretty good, the costumes are exquisite, and the songs fantastic. The tone was actually not quite what I was expecting. It was much more serious than I had been lead to believe, especially by the title. While it was funny in places, it is also very dramatic. I question the G rating, in fact. I probably would have given it a PG, though a soft one. Definitely worth seeing.

Will I Buy It? Probably not. I prefer other musicals.

A Mighty Wind

2003-10-03T20:31:00.001-04:00

In a Nutshell: Great music! Okay movie. The concert saved it for me.

Quick Plot: Another "mockumentary" from Christopher Guest, this time targeting the folk music scene. Fictional folk music icon Irving Steinbloom has passed away. His children organize a memorial concert starring all of the acts he represented over the years. Comprised of "interviews" with the groups as well as concert footage (both during and behind the scenes).

In Detail: Interesting. This was my first Christopher Guest film, and it was certainly interesting. I certainly didn't love it, but I think I liked it. LOL Okay, so not the most glowing review. Let's see if I can be a little more specific. It was pretty much what I expected, so I guess that was good. But I expected most of the humor to NOT be the kind I liked, and I was right. It wasn't the gross-out humor that I hate, but most of it was "I don't really see why all these people are laughing about that." It's not that I didn't get the jokes, I just didn't think they were funny.

Don't get me wrong, it had its laugh out loud moments! And we certainly enjoyed ourselves. We were obviously engaged in the story to a certain extend, because we cared whether or not a certain event took place during the concert (nope, sorry, I ain't tellin'!). The concert at the end saved it for me. If it has been mostly like the "documentary parts" at the beginning, I would have been disappointed. I'm glad I saw it, the music was *wonderful*, and I don't care to see it again. Nor will I probably see any further Christopher Guest films (unless he is spoofing something close to my heart, like Star Trek or something). I also think Eugene Levy should quit acting and sing for a living. WOW!

Will I Buy It? Probably not, but I might pick up the soundtrack.

The Rundown

2003-10-03T19:11:00.002-04:00

In a Nutshell: It was fine. Certainly entertaining (and I have seen a film or two that couldn't even claim that), an quite funny in some places. And it certainly lives up to its billing: The Rock has definitely arrived with this film.

Quick Plot: Some time ago, Beck got in with the wrong people. In order to get out, and start a restaurant like he's always wanted, he has to do one last "job": find the boss's son, who has disappeared into the jungle.

In Detail: Not really much to say. It was entertaining, it was funny. It shows that The Rock is capable of carrying a film pretty much on his own, and he does equally well at comedy and action. Beyond that, it was your basic action popcorn flick. I do think some of the violence was out of line with the overall tone of the film, but perhaps that was part of the point (for it to be shocking). There wasn't a lot of it, and it wasn't gory, it just didn't seem to fit the tone. I also thought he would get out of the movie without actually shooting anyone with a gun. Sadly, not so. I think it would have been more difficult to write, but also more rewarding. As for the rest of the cast, the kid (can't even remember his name) was just annoying, IMO, though I didn't expect it to be otherwise. Rosario Dawson was good, just not really a big enough part. Many critics have been commending Christopher Walken's performance. It was fine, but I've seen better from him, including Catch Me If You Can. If you like brainless action and/or The Rock, then see it. We mainly caught it because we haven't seen a new film in the theater since mid-August! Not bad, but could certainly wait to be rented as well.

Will I Buy It? Doubtful!

Identity

2003-10-03T14:08:00.000-04:00

In a Nutshell: Interesting. Strange. I'm still pondering it several days later, so it must have been pretty good.

Quick Plot: A group of strangers (or are they?) stop at a lone hotel after being randomly (or is it?) stranded in the middle of nowhere during a torrential rainstorm. And one by one, they are being killed. Who is next? Who will survive?

In Detail: Um, yeah. Wow. I'm not really sure what to say about this movie. I can't really say too much or I might give something away. Some very interesting twists, I assure you. I had one figured out almost immediately, and I was actually kind-of disappointed that I had it within 20 minutes or so of the start of the film. Then they totally broadsided me with another twist that had me completely spinning in circles. Very cool. I didn't see this movie originally because I was afraid it would be too scary or too gory (or both). But, I did take my brother's word for it that it was mostly psychological/thriller type stuff (I trust his judgement on these matters completely), and he was right. They generally imply a lot more than you actually see. But the little bits they do show were borderline on the "Erin Gore Tolerance" scale, especially the first murder. Worth seeing, though, if you like "thrillers with twists."

Will I Buy It? Probably not. I'm glad I saw it, but I wouldn't watch it over and over.

Seabiscuit

2003-08-13T16:04:00.001-04:00

In a Nutshell: Very good. Chris Cooper and William H. Macy give particularly memorable performances.

Quick Plot: A rich man who knows more about cars than horses hires a down on his luck "weird" horse trainer and a "huge" jockey to take his runt of a race horse to victory.

In Detail: I have heard nothing but good things about this movie, and I really have nothing but good things to say about it, except that it wasn't as great of a movie as I was expecting. However, I usually feel disappointed when I leave a film that was not all I hoped for, and that was NOT the case here. I left the theater very satisfied and not disappointed at all. Chris Cooper is just down-right wonderful! All of the other performances are very good, but his stands out particularly in my mind. So does William H. Macy's role; such a character! Gary Stevens (plays jockey George Woolf) also particularly sticks out as a wonderful performance, made all the more amazing when you consider that he *is* a professional Hall of Fame jockey (won the Kentucky Derby 3 times) and not an actor. I will say that I found the film a bit slow; not a bad thing in and of itself, just something to be ready for. Wouldn't lose much on the small screen, I don't think.

Will I Buy It? Probably not.

The Italian Job (2003)

2003-08-13T14:21:00.000-04:00

In a Nutshell: Fun flick. One of the better heist films I've seen in a while, and *fabulous* chase scenes.

Quick Plot: Charlie is the ringleader of a band of high-tech thieves. When Steve, his second in command, double crosses the team and takes the gold they worked so hard to steal, they are determined to seek revenge the best way they know how: steal it back. Please note that I have not seen the original version of this film (1969), so I cannot compare the two.

In Detail: Not really a lot of details to give. I enjoyed this movie a lot. Thanks to everyone who told me I should see it! I wasn't really interested until I heard my friends raving about it. As I have mentioned before, I love chase scenes, and this has one good one (speed boats in Venice) and one excellent one (Mini Coopers through LA). Great cast of quirky characters, though I think Wrench was my favorite. Hilarious scene with Handsome Rob and the "cable guy"; if that really was Seth Green doing the voices, he should do voice work for a living and give up acting. Too funny! I know this film is about out of the theaters in most areas (I was surprised to find it still around here this weekend), but see it if you can. Video would be fine, but it would be more impressive on the big screen, even with the very few special effects.

Will I Buy It? Don't know yet. It's a solid maybe. :-)