Star Trek (2009)

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!

Spider-Man 3

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.

Shall We Dance

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.

Stranger Than Fiction

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.

Superman Returns

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.

Serenity

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.

Star Wars, Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

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?

Sahara

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.

Spider-Man 2

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!).

Seabiscuit

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.

A Simple Twist of Fate

In a Nutshell: A sweet, sometimes funny, quite dramatic film that waits until the last possible instant to pull it all together. Worth seeing.

Quick Plot: Michael McCann had a great life, until fate dealt him quite a blow, after which he moved to a small town, living a hermit-like existence. But, fate comes knocking once again; his money is stolen and a little girl turns up on his doorstep, her mother dead from exposure in his yard. He receives custody of the child, bringing a spark to his life, only to have to fight for her in court when her "real" father comes calling 10 years later.

In Detail: This movie really has a lot going for it, primarily the cast. Steve Martin, Gabriel Byrne, Laura Linney, and Catherine O'Hara are all wonderful. However, do not assume that this is a comedy. It is primarily a drama, with some funny moments. I was not prepared for the seriousness; it looked more like a cute "comedic single person inherits mischievous child who upsets stodgy life" film. And you keep wondering when and how this one character is going to come back into play. You know he *must,* but they sure wait a long time to do it. It is appropriate to the story, though, so it's okay. A very sweet and touching story.

Will I Buy It? I hadn't even seen it until after we bought it on DH's recommendation, and we bought it for about what it would have cost to rent it. I am glad we own it, though.

Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas

In a Nutshell: It was just okay. Nothing really outstanding about it in any way, but it wasn't bad either.

Quick Plot: When Sinbad is accused of stealing the Book of Peace, the protectorate of the Twelve Cities, his best friend Proteus takes his place in jail. He will be put to death in 10 days if Sinbad does not return with the Book. Sinbad and his ship of thieves, along with Proteus's fiancee, set sail, determined to recapture the book from Eris, the Goddess of Chaos, no matter what obstacles she puts in their way.

In Detail: Really not much to say about this film. It was just okay. I didn't find it overly humorous or adventurous, nor particularly beautiful to watch. Eris was the best thing about the film, and I don't think she had a big enough or significant enough part, despite being responsible for most of the chaos going on. It was really an odd film in that way; plenty happened while it seemed that nothing happened. I left the theater feeling pretty much nothing. Not bad, not good, not happy, not thrilled, not energetic; bored is the best way I can describe it, but it wasn't really that either. Underwhelmed, perhaps? I simply felt nothing, which I don't think is any film's goal. See it if you want to, perhaps rent, but there's no reason to rush right out and catch it in the theater.

Will I Buy It? Probably not. As much as I loved Antz and The Prince of Egypt (both Dreamworks films, like this one), many of their recent offerings (The Road to El Dorado, Shrek (which I really disliked), Spirit), including this one, just haven't done it for me.

Sweet Home Alabama

In a Nutshell: Very generic, very blah. I was disappointed.

Quick Plot: Melanie Carmichael (Reese Witherspoon) is an emerging NYC fashion designer. When her boyfriend, the mayor's son, proposes, she must return home to Alabama to divorce one of the many skeletons in her closet, who is not feeling very cooperative. As Melanie reconnects with her southern roots, she must choose between the new life and the old.

In Detail: ::shrug:: It was fine, really. It was just so generic that it was almost boring. Definitely some smiles and some touching romantic moments, but it was really pretty blah. I was hoping for more. My best friend pointed out something very interesting, and I really have to agree with her. I think this film was much funnier to those not from the South. There is something very particular and peculiar about Southern life (and I can say that, being born and raised here), and if you've never experienced it first hand, you'll probably find much of it hilarious. I'm sure folks in the mid-west and the north-east probably got a big kick out of coon dog cemeteries and babies in bars and Civil War reenactments and stopping to talk to random people in the middle of a run down street full of pick up trucks. For me, that's just life! So, you might want to watch it if it comes on television, but I wouldn't even bother renting it. Just too blah.

Will I Buy It? Nope.

Shanghi Knights

In a Nutshell: Classic Jackie Chan, and oh so much fun. The anachronisms alone are hilarious (if quite over the top), the stunts and fights are amazing, and Lin kicks butt!

Quick Plot: In this sequel to Shanghi Noon, Chon Wang's (Jackie Chan) estranged father is killed in China. The murderer escapes to England, and Chon's sister Lin (Fann Wong) follows, after sending word to her brother back in the American west. Chon enlists the help of "his favorite side kick" Roy O'Bannon (Owen Wilson), who is more than happy to help out "his favorite side kick" Chon on this adventure.

In Detail: I really like Jackie Chan. I should thank my husband more often for introducing he to his films. He is so much fun, and such an amazing athlete. Many of the fight scenes look almost like dances (and it even plays on this theme at one point), they are so beautifully choreographed and, as always, exceptionally well executed. So the plot is hokey, that's not why you go to see movies like this. You go for the amazing Jackie Chan, and the wonderful interaction between him and Owen Wilson. I also liked the spark that Fann Wong added to the mix. She's beautiful, she's tough, and she's an amazing fighter in her own right. An all-round good time, and a very enjoyable afternoon. Also, you don't really have to have seen the first film to enjoy the second. You may miss a couple of passing references, but it's mostly a separate entity. We haven't seen Shanghi Noon since we saw it in the theater in 2000, despite how much we liked it. I wish I had seen it again before watching this film, but I don't think we really missed anything major. I just hoped to be able to compare it to the first, but it's been too long. Maybe we'll catch "Noon" again soon, and I'll let you know. And yes, outtakes are shown at the end of the film before the credits.

Will I Buy It? Probably; we'll most likely wait for the inevitable box set and get the two together.

Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron

In a Nutshell: Excellent for children, fairly good for adults. A perfectly pleasant film.

Quick Plot: Follow the adventures of Spirit through the pioneering old west, from capture by the army to living with Native Americans, through childhood and love. (And no talking animals, though Spirit does "narrate" over the action occasionally.)

In Detail: I liked this film fine. I think it is a great movie for kids, though if you aren't ready to explain "why the mama horse is laying down like she's hurt, and then a baby horse suddenly appears," then you may want to wait. It's not icky, and nothing inappropriate is shown, but it's not Bambi either. The music is by Bryan Adams, and it's fine, but not spectacular. I think the songs at the beginning were a little close together. I was also disappointed in the blending of the hand drawn elements and the CG elements. It may have come off better on the big screen, but it was clearly obvious what was what on the television. It was funny, it was a little sad, it was tense, it was happy. Quite good, but never truly making it to great status for me. If the audience is just adults, then it's worth seeing, but don't rush right out and rent it. If you have kids, you really should try it. I think they'll like it a lot.

Will I Buy It? Probably, eventually, but mainly for my (future) kids. I liked it fine, and we may watch it now and again, but it doesn't make it to my list for tons of repeat viewings like many Disneys.

Star Trek: Nemesis

In a Nutshell: Unsatisfying. I wish the news was better. Perhaps seeing it with lower expectations will help?

Quick Plot: The Romulans have a new Praetor, Shinzon of Reman (their sister world). They have asked the Federation to send the Enterprise under the pretence of opening negotiations for a truce (yeah right). The Praetor, however, is not Reman, he is human, and all too familiar. He also has no plans for peace. Picard and the Enterprise must stop Shinzon before he leads the combined Romulan/Reman forces to an overthrow of the Federation.

In Detail: I'm not really sure what else to say, I just found the whole experience unsatisfying. I'm a Trekker, you all know that. I have at least been satisfied, if not happy, with each of the last 6 films (well, except maybe Trek V). This one was just missing *something.* I think it suffered greatly from the lack of Jonathan Frakes as director. I know he was tired, I know he was busy, but the new guy (an admitted non-follower of the shows or films) really messed things up. Even managed to break cannon at least twice by getting two major facts wrong, which irks me to no end, and seriously bent cannon in other spots to serve his own purposes. Where were the continuity people when you needed them? It also lacked the feeling of family that you usually sense in these films, and no great engineering solutions or amazing battle strategies. Perhaps it was just too straight-forward? I don't know.

The whole movie seemed almost pointless. I really saw no great motivation for Shinzon to do what he did, and there was really no sub-plot to speak of. Instead of the pieces clicking into place in the final moments, many plot points seemed contrived and forced. The humor, generally speaking, didn't work at all; it was ill-timed and out of place. It wasn't a bad movie, but I didn't think it was particularly good either. It seemed like a big episode with better sets, costumes, make-up, and effects. And while this is not all-together bad, it's not really all that good either. I think "All Good Things" (the final TNG episode) was MUCH better. And though a nice neat ending is not necessary for me to like a film, I think this movie could have used one. If it is to be the last voyage of the TNG cast, and perhaps the Enterprise herself, shouldn't we have left feeling complete? I sure didn't.

Will I Buy It? Yes, but I will probably treat it like Star Trek V, on the shelf to have a complete collection, but rarely (if ever) watched.

The Santa Clause 2

In a Nutshell: Perfectly pleasant, but a little hit and miss. The original is better.

Quick Plot: When we last left Scott Calvin, he had become Santa Claus by virtue of the first "Santa Clause." However, his elvin help forgot to mention the second clause, which states that he must get married, or he ceases to be Santa, and he only has 28 days to find a wife. He must hurry! The "de-Santa-fication" process has already begun.

In Detail: I love the original "The Santa Clause" movie, and amazingly, the entire cast returned. I do wish I had been able to see it again before we went to see the sequel, but I had to make due without. (And I can't go buy it now because it's too close to Christmas. Sheesh!) Perhaps the original isn't as wonderful as I remember, but this movie didn't fully live up. It was fine, good for kids, but it just seemed to be missing something. I think it was the sense of wonder as you watched Tim Allen follow a pretty strong character arc from Mr. Businessman to Santa, discovering the intricacies of the North Pole along the way. The scenes where he is back "on earth" are pretty good (better in the wife department than the son department), but the scenes with the substitute Santa (left to keep the elves working) felt strained, and I didn't find them especially funny. I know part of the point was that he only had 28 days to find a wife, but the whole movie felt a bit rushed. Some touching moments, and a great scene with the council of "other mythical beings," but it just wasn't the same, or even as good, as the original. Again, perfectly fine, but not great. Trekkies, keep your eyes open!

Will I Buy It? Perhaps when I'm in the market for films my kids can watch that I don't mind watching, we'll invest in this one, but I don't predict us picking it up before then.

Spirited Away

In a Nutshell: Interesting, but I don't think I fully "got it."

Quick Plot: (Brief but important background: This is a film from a Japanese master of Anime. This is the most successful film of all time in Japan, distributed in the US by Disney. It is dubbed, not subtitled.) A girl and her family stumble upon a resort for the spirits. When her parents become enchanted by the place and are kidnapped, Chihiro must take on the witch Yubaba to save them and herself, with the help of a variety of unusual friends.

In Detail: Um, yeah. It was, ah, interesting. Honestly, I think the cultural gap is too large, at least for me. The film was fine, meaning that it made sense and followed a "normal" progression. The story was different (though perhaps common in Japan). But when it was finished, I just thought "okay, I have no idea what the point of that really was." I think there were lots of references, both visual and perhaps in the names, that were simply lost on me since I don't have any kind of understanding of Japanese culture and spirituality. Even my brother, who is a great fan of Anime/Japanimation, said he didn't really get it either. An interesting cultural experience, one I am happy to have had, but not one I care to repeat any time soon.

Will I Buy It? No. It didn't make enough sense to me, so I would not enjoy repeat viewings.

The Sum of All Fears

In a Nutshell: Not a bad addition to the Jack Ryan series, but I definitely prefer Ford or Baldwin.

Quick Plot: Jack Ryan is a new recruit the CIA (14 months, I believe they said). There's a 3rd party out there making the US and Russians think they are attacking each other. A nuclear device has been purchased by said 3rd party and shipped to the US. It goes off, bringing the US and Russia to the brink of full-scale nuclear war. Can Jack convince his superiors and the President that it's not the Russians?

In Detail: You know, I used to wonder why there was such anxiety by some people about Cold War films, such as Hunt for Red October. The thought of nuclear war seemed so far-fetched to me by the late-80s and early-90s. "Like that would ever really happen." Well, after September 11, those movies are not nearly so much fun. I had heard critics saying that it might be too soon, and I didn't believe them. After seeing it, perhaps they are right. The scariest part is knowing that it depicts precisely the actions that I would expect the US and Russian governments to take should such an event ever take place. Very scary indeed.

**Warning, here comes a rant.** Why was the film set in 2002? I am willing to suspend disbelief enough to accept Ben Affleck as a young Jack Ryan. Marketing kept pushing it as the "Jack Ryan prequel." Then shouldn't it have been set in the 80s?! I know the book is a sequel, not a prequel. I know the screenplay was written for Harrison Ford, then altered to accept a "younger" Ryan and formulated as a prequel. Fine. But there is NO way that Hunt could be early 90s, Clear and Present Danger and Patriot Games could be mid-late 90s, and this prequel could be 2002. If you were already tinkering enough with it, then you could have simply shifted the timeline. But then you wouldn't have had cell phones and PDAs and stuff. GRRR! Either it's a prequel, or it's the next one with a different actor as Ryan (a la James Bond). You can't have it both ways! /end rant.

Is it good? Yes. Did I like it? Reserved yes. Worth full price? Probably. Lose much on small screen? I don't think so. And the real question....

Will I Buy It? I'm not sure yet.

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones

In a Nutshell: Corny! Now, all of the movies are a little hokey (and I love them anyway), but this was awful, even painful to watch at some points. Only for the most diehard of Star Wars fans.

Quick Plot: Former queen, now Ambassador Padme Amidala is being threatened. The Counsel sends two Jedi to protect her, both old friends. Anakin chafes against the restrictions placed upon him by the fatherly Obi-Wan, while still carrying his boyhood torch for Padme. Obi-Wan spends his time trying to figure out who is ordering clones of a bounty hunter, and why.

In Detail: OMG, the acting was just so bad! It makes Adam West's Batman look like Oscar-winning performances! I so wanted this movie to be good, and it really did have some interesting points and story elements, but the execution left MUCH to be desired. As far as overall watch-ability goes, Episode I was better. (Believe me, I never thought I would say that, though Ep. I has grown on me each time I've seen it.) It does need to be seen on the big screen, so do see it if you have any interest. But don't pay full price, and don't go expecting much from it; you might come out less disappointed that way.

I thought the Vader aspects of Anakin were well done. John Williams is a truly brilliant man, and he aids in telling the story simply through his use of various musical themes from previous Star Wars films in some places. For instance, I got chills when it suddenly transitions from "Luke's theme" to "Darth Maul's theme." Very effective at foreshadowing, without saying a single word. I also thought Ewan McGregor did a great job as Obi-Wan. I predict that while watching the Episodes in order in the future, the transition from Ewan McGregor to Alec Guinness will be practically seamless. The innocent aspects of Anakin and the love story were handled poorly. Natalie Portman was so wooden! She didn't show hardly any spunk until the very end. I was beginning to wonder where Leia got it from. Most of the scenes between her and Hayden Christensen were terrible, more due to the writing than their acting, though that could have used a bit of help as well. "I've died a little each day since you came back into my life." Oh, pu-lease! And did we really need the girl in the flowing dress to run through the meadow? Come now, Mr. Lucas, there's hopeless romantic and then there's too much. I did way too much eye-rolling (much more than Spider-Man, which is sad). I thought the editing was way too choppy, especially for the first hour or so (it's right at 2.5 hours, with previews and everything). No one had a conversation longer than a couple of lines for a while. The overwhelming need to state the blatantly obvious was also annoying. Again, it caused too much eye rolling. And don't expect much of the two-saber dual. It wasn't long enough to be satisfying, IMHO.

So, as you can see, I was very disappointed in the movie, though I am certainly still pondering how all the pieces are going to fit together in the next movie. As much as I disliked it, it has kept me thinking for 3 days now, with no signs of stopping, so that tells you how much I liked the new story points. Some good info, but not a good film. He has a bunch of things to work out in Episode III to avoid some messy complications and inconsistencies with Episodes IV-VI, but I'm sure he can do it. I just hope it's a bit more watch-able than this one.

Will I Buy It? Yes, but only to complete the set.