Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!