A Knight's Tale

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

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.

Ice Age 2: The Meltdown

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

Mr. and Mrs. Smith

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

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.

Get Smart

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

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.

Premonition

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

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.

The Bridge

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.

Next

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.

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.

Wimbledon

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

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.

The Pursuit of Happyness

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

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.

Ocean's 11 (1960)

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.

Dangerous When Wet

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

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

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.