Hancock

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.

Holiday Inn

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.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

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.

Hitch

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.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

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.... :)

Hellboy

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.

Home on the Range

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. :(

Hulk

In a Nutshell: Bad. Just bad. Don't waste your time or your money. And my brother earned the right to say "I told you so," not that *I* didn't believe him (my husband made me go).

Quick Plot: Do I have to? I just don't want to think about this film anymore! Oh, all right. Big screen adaptation of the comic book favorite "The Incredible Hulk," though from what I understand from readers of the comic, only the names and the fact that the lead turns into a green monster when angry were taken from it. The rest is different, even the cause of the transformation.

In Detail: I am going to try to be positive here for a moment, so here are four good things I can say about the film (as my brother picks himself up off the floor; I'm sure he couldn't come up with four good things about the movie if he tried). 1) Believe it or not, this is not the worst movie I've ever seen, though it ranks right up there. 2) The CG Hulk looks better than I thought it would, based on the previews where he looked terrible. 3) The visual style of the film was interesting; it effectively recreates the look and feel of a comic book in places. 4) The credits were done in an interesting manner. Probably the best part of the film actually, because a) they were interesting, and b) it meant the film was over.

This movie just went too far beyond my realm of "willing suspension of disbelief," and that's saying something coming from a lifelong fantasy and sci-fi fan! And it kept going farther and farther into the deep end as the film progressed. It was either slow or wild, and most action sequences went on and on for way too long. The dog fight was so over the top in violence that it made me feel sick and I almost left the theater (wish I had now, as it only went downhill from there). It was just bizarre. My brother told me how bad it was (though I think he thinks it's even worse than I do), and I was all set not to go, but my husband insisted. Not only does he regret it, he had to take me to see Pirates of the Caribbean again as penance, to wash away the residue left by such a bad movie. Please don't see Hulk. It's 138 minutes of your life you'll wish you had back, not to mention the money you could have spent on something (anything!) else.

Will I Buy It? ROTFL!! Oh yeah, that's funny. I am disinclined to acquiesce to such a request. (That means no.) :p

How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days

In a Nutshell: Funnier than it should have been. Good for girls and guys. Fun, but nothing fabulous.

Quick Plot: Andie Anderson, who aspires to be a great journalist, is stuck writing "How To" stories for a ladies' magazine. Her latest assignment: "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days," or everything women do wrong in relationships. For her case study, she picks up a guy named Benjamin Barry (Matthew McConaughey) in a bar. Little does she know that Ben has made a bet that he can make a girl fall in love with him in 10 days as part of an advertising campaign. All's fair in love and war, and the battle is on!

In Detail: Billed as "a chick flick for guys," this movie does have quite a lot going for it. Not the least of which is Matthew McConaughey (sigh). Because of his parallel plot line, there is plenty here for guys to enjoy as well. Still a chick flick, but there were lots of guys laughing and nodding through the entire movie (as opposed to sleeping, like normal). It was definitely laugh out loud funny in spots, and it had plenty of great moments. But despite all of this, it never managed to elevate itself above generic rom-com status. Better laughs, perhaps, but not really a better story. This is neither bad nor good, just know what to expect before you see it. To me, comedies are always better with a group, so either go to a matinee, or rent it with a group of girl *and* guy friends.

Will I Buy It? I don't know. I own several of my favorite rom-coms, and this one didn't rank much above average, so I'd say probably not (despite a very pretty Matt McC).

Hidalgo

In a Nutshell: Worth seeing, once. A little long, a little slow, but still pretty good. Loved the horse. Probably won't lose anything on the small screen if you want to wait.

Quick Plot: "Legendary" horseman Frank Hopkins is invited to participate in the world's greatest horse race across the 3000-mile dessert called the Ocean of Fire in Arabia. Can his mixed-blood Mustang Hidalgo compete against the purest Arabian equine bloodlines in the world?

In Detail: Like I said, it is worth seeing. I definitely think it was too long. It is over two hours, and by more than a few minutes. There is only so much "it's hot and we're in the barren dessert" footage you can stand, ya know? I also found the film a little choppy. Most segments didn't seem to flow well into the next segments. And beware the "based on a true story" moniker. It is based on the life of Frank Hopkins, as told by Frank Hopkins, as legendary for his tall tales as for his reputed horseman skills. Does that make the story any less interesting? No, not really. Just makes it slightly less than true. Still worth seeing, and it's great to see Omar Shariff on screen again, even if it is in a small part beneath his skills. And for the record, I think the PG-13 is for violence and several (fake) animal injuries, including one participant killing (stabbing) his horse when it breaks a leg. I don't distinctly recall any language, and there is no sex at all.

Will I Buy It? Probably not. Worth seeing *once*, maybe twice, not repeatedly IMO.

The Hours

In a Nutshell: Extremely well acted, good story. I liked it (didn't love it), DH not so much. Not wow like I was expecting.

Quick Plot: The story of three lives, all revolving around the Virginia Woolf novel Mrs. Dalloway in one way or another: Virginia herself writing the novel in 1928, housewife Laura reading the novel in 1951, and editor Clarissa, nicknamed Mrs. Dalloway by a friend.

In Detail: I liked this movie, though I didn't love it. It had its moments, it had some great lines, it had a fantastic cast (virtually everyone is "somebody"), and the acting was amazing. How all of that could lead to just an okay movie, I'm not quite sure, but it did. It was very slow, which isn't always a bad thing, but I did feel the pacing could have picked up just a touch. While I found it uplifting, despite its grim moments, I didn't find it truly inspiring or powerful. DH got very little if anything out of it, except that all women are lesbians, either secretly or openly (he's kidding; sort-of). There may have been some subtext that we missed, since neither of us knows much about Woolf or the book. It's certainly not for everyone, but it is interesting to watch. Rent if you aren't sure you would like it.

Will I Buy It? Highly doubtful. It was good, I'm glad I saw it, but there is not enough there for me to watch it over and over.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

In a Nutshell: To borrow from my friend Annette, it's grand! Better than the first, in my opinion.

Quick Plot: Harry, Ron, and Hermione are back, ready to learn more witchcraft and wizardry, and save the school (and the wizarding world) from evil once more. This time, a strange force is roaming the grounds, hunting "muggle-borns." Several school inhabitants have already been petrified, with promises to kill scrawled on the walls in blood. If the culprit is not caught, Hogwarts will have to be closed.

In Detail: Wow! I had so much fun at this movie. Again, filmmakers seemed to have plucked characters and settings straight out of my imagination and pasted them directly on the screen. Chamber of Secrets (CoS) is, in fact, my least favorite book, and I still loved the movie. Better than the first by far. It was still a kids movie, without being quite so childish. Perhaps this is aided by the maturity of the stars. The voices of Harry and Ron have now broken, though Harry wears his new tones a bit more easily than Ron. Less "baby fat" appears on all three stars, especially Hermione. Watch out, she'll be breaking hearts soon! Draco Malfoy, once the smallest of the group, is now the tallest, adding even more menace. My second favorite character in the series makes his debut in CoS: Mr. Weasley. (Sirius Black is my fav; we'll see him next time.) Though cut to even less of a part than he had in the book, Mr. Weasley's geniality, generosity, and fascination with muggles is not in question. Lucius Malfoy, played by Jason Isaacs, also makes his first appearance, and what a brilliant casting job that was. His patented sneer was perfect, and he pulls off the white-blond hair as if he were born with it. Wonderful! Even Dobby was less annoying than I expected. Sadly, this is one of the last performances by Richard Harris. It will be interesting to see who is chosen to replace him. Several names are being thrown around (Christopher Lee, Ian McKellen, and Patrick Stewart (my fav), to name a few), but nothing definite has been announced. There is no "in memory of" because the film had already gone to print when he passed away.

The film is 2.5 hours, but I did not find it dragging in the slightest (unlike the film for Sorcerer's Stone). Several of the, um, oversized creatures were enough to give me the willies, especially at the very end. Quite creepy. I certainly don't recommend this film for children under 5 or 6, but you know your kids best. Be sure you stay through all of the credits (and there are a ton of them) for a small little clip at the end.

Will I Buy It? Absolutely! I really do love this world created by J.K. Rowling, and watching the movie is a great reminder of how much (and why) I love these books. Can't wait for the DVD!