Mamma Mia

V: Fun, fun, fun! We really enjoyed this show. It was silly and quirky and rompy - just really fun. Meryl Streep, as always, is great. And she can sing! We actually pulled up a couple of the movie soundtrack songs afterward - and she sounds really good. The "Winner Takes It All" number was the best - really powerful and touching. The music by ABBA is so addicting. And I hear they make an appearance in the film (but I don't know what they look like.) I loved the filming location - I want to go there. Pierce Brosnan, I think, sounds better if you don't look at him. His face seemed awkwardly strained when singing. The rest of the cast was very likeable, as well. I really laughed hard and out loud at the very end when the stars are dancing in full sparkly bellbottoms and platforms. Seeing Fitzwilliam Darcy wiggle like that was priceless. 3 1/2 stars

M: To start, V and I went and saw Mamma Mia in Las Vegas and absolutely loved it. The woman who played Donna in the play put together what I think is the greatest performance I have seen by an individual in a play. Meryl Streep and this movie rendition of the play had big shoes to fill. And they did a pretty darn good job. Meryl Streep was fantastic, likable, believable, and a great singer. Amanda Seyfried, who played Sophie, had the best voice of the bunch, while Collin Firth (Pride & Prejudice) and Pierce Brosnan made me squirm with embarrassment at times when they broke into song, but even they were lovable and enjoyable. All and all, a very good show. The play is better, especially at a big venue, but $6.50 for a ticket beats the $120.00 (each!) V and I paid in Vegas any day. 3 1/2 stars

National Treasure 2

M: After enjoying the original so much, I was disappointed in this sequel. This movie lacked both the originality and the cleverness of its predecessor. It was a decent adventure movie, but the characters were not super likable and the adventure seemed unnecessary, unbelievable, unrealistic, and, ultimately, unfulfilling. Ed Harris' character was completely beyond my understanding, one minute he was a maniacal murderous monster chasing the good guys through the streets of London, hell bent on beating them to the treasure even if it meant killing them all along with half the city of London, the next minute he was seemingly part of the team. an OK show, worth a red box, but ultimately, fairly disappointing. 2 stars

V: Yeah, the first was so fun because of all the puzzles and clues they had to figure out. This one had just a few puzzles. The big problem was that -unless I missed it - I saw no justification for what they were doing. Supposedly it was to clear his ancestor's name, but there was no reason finding the treasure would clear his ancestor's name - if anything (!) it further proved his ancestor's guilt in being involved with the original bad-guy-gold-hunters! So that could have used some clarification. The villain was oddly motivated, too. If it's just for money or fame, keep it at that. What's with the artifacts and then destroying them, and being so intensely violent, when he had been so calculated and cautious for so long before? The relationships between the good guys were fun, though. Fairly entertaining, even if there were a few puzzle pieces missing. 2 1/2 stars