Bleak House

M: This BBC mini-series based on the Dickens Novel is great. It has its super-villains, it has its heroes. Very enjoyable show. I considered giving it a 4, even though the lawyers were all absolute villains, which made me feel bad, perhaps deservedly so. Check it out at your local library. 3 1/2 stars

V: I was really drawn into this - it made for many too-late nights. (3 discs, or 4? With many episodes.) It was well-acted with many interesting, great characters. They managed to keep it from not going too far "out there" as Dickens can tend. Really enjoyable with some good lessons, too. Also 3 1/2 stars

Persuasion, BBC 1995

M: This is a much better version than the more recent BBC we watched a few weeks ago. There is really no reason to vary too much from Jane Austin's books, particularly the language, which is so good. This movie was much truer to the book, which I found great. That said, Persuasion, although brilliantly written with fascinating characters, is really not a great romance. I wasn't a huge fan of the leading man either. So this wont get the highest of marks. But it is a show worth seeing, especially if you are looking for a good adaptation of a Jane Austin classic. 3 stars.

V: Yes, much better than the other one. I'm not sure why they make the Anns so plain. I know she had "lost her youthful bloom" but she wasn't morbid looking. Anyway, don't bother with that other Persuasion. This one is quite good. Not perfect, but good. 3 stars.

Be a Follower

Okay, all you who love to read this blog! (Joey and Katie.) Tired of leadership? Now's your chance to become a follower! See panel on the right. Thank you.

Yes Man

V: This movie had potential. Jim Carrey and Zoey Deschanel are a cute pairing. It had some very funny things in it and an interesting premise. Better than the "Liar, Liar" premise (also starring Jim Carrey) this guy chooses to say yes to everything, to see how it changes his life. He (and the viewers) find that saying "yes" can open up new doors and experiences. Of course, you need to say no sometimes, too, which he learns. The point is, take advantage of new opportunities and be honest with yourself. Okay. Then this old lady shows up and RUINS the entire movie. Very offensive. Maybe watch it edited, and it will be an okay show. 2 stars

M: A couple funny moments. When Jim Carrey is on, he is classic (dumb and dumber - eternal sunshine of the spotless mine), when he is off, it is just too much. He was at his best in this movie when he wasn't doing slapstick. And there were times when he and Zoey pulled it off (although she is way too young for him). When he busted out the silly, ouch. Some real disgusting and unnecessary moments take what could be fun and make it nasty. Can't recommend, but if it were cleaned up, this would be a good show. 2 stars

Two for the Road

M: You would think that a movie with Audrey Hepburn and Albert Finney would be really great. Well we thought that, and were sorely mistaken. This movie, about a couple that falls out of love (I think that is what it was about, "learning when things are over"), was truly painful, and depressing to boot. It is not fun to watch people be mean, cruel, and spiteful to one another. The movie was annoying and lame. I hated this movie, as much as the characters seemed to hate each other. But, like them, I stuck it out because, hey, why not, and we already popped the popcorn. Blah. 1 star

V: M's last couple of lines are spot on. It was pretty bad. The funniest parts - funny because they were painfully true - were the antics of a young child and her frustrated parents. I re-emphasize the "painful" part. I think they were going for deep and valid because it's edgy and true, but they were just a married couple who treated each other badly. That's no more true to life (but probably easier) than a couple treating each other well. But I suppose that wouldn't make "great cinema." And they did this supposedly clever thing where the movie jumped back and forth (and back) (and forth) in the past and present, which turned out not to have a point, but was just bothersome. The script was clever at times. At 111 minutes, this movie dragged on for four hours. Don't bother with this "classic." 1 1/2 stars

40 Year Old Virgin (Edited TV Version)

M: We watched this edited on NBC the other night. We do not recommend watching it unedited, as it was clear that a lot of bad stuff was taken out. I, however, loved the movie in the form we saw. There were some seriously funny moments, a lot of them. Steve Carell was great and lovable. Keep in mind that there is content that, even in edited form, may be offensive. You can only edit so much, and this is a movie about a virgin. But, if you can find it edited, it may be worth watching. Very funny. 3 1/2 stars

V: Don't judge us for watching and liking this show. (Stop it, stop it right now.) It was very cleaned up. Like M said, there are some truly hilarious things in this show. Carell is very funny. Aren't we glad we have a Carell. I reminisced fondly on this show for a couple of days after seeing it. 3 stars.

The Proposal

M: The Proposal is not going to change your life. Not great, not terrible. Just another rom-com where boy meets girl, boy and girl don't get along, but through a series of humorous events they start to appreciate and love each other, conflict develops, conflict is resolved, all past injustices are quickly forgiven, and they kiss (or more); end credits. Here, I appreciated that they didn't go beyond the kiss, although V commented on how it is simply expected and inferred that they would, but it just didn't make the screen. I liked the couple alright, they looked good together, but I didn't buy the romance. I am sorry but years of cruel treatment followed by extortion can't be so easily overcome, can it? A few overly silly parts and a bit of real predictability also hinder the movie. But, it is fairly harmless (well, one partial nude scene) and worth a few laughs. 2 1/2 stars

V: So if you had to convince an INS agent that you were actually engaged, but wanted to wait to have sex until after you were married, you'd be out of luck? They wouldn't believe the engagement was real? And the families just assume you will be sleeping together? That bugged me. Some stuff was funny. Some stuff was really silly. It's hard to believe Sandra Bullock as a really mean, bitter person. But I guess that's to her credit. It was okay. 2 stars.

Persuasion, BBC 2007

M: V and I have a little tradition of reading a Jane Austin book at the same time and, when we have finished, watching the movie, or movies, together. Persuasion is a great book, with very sharp and clever writing. We watched what I just discovered to be a 2007 tv version, 90 minutes without commercials. This version took great liberties in straying from the book. It really didn't need to. It was beautifully filmed for the most part, with a few random Blair Witch type scenes where the camera was suddenly following the action in that bouncy way, oddly out of place here. Maybe I was looking too much for variance from the book, and I am usually not such a stickler on those things, but it was distracting the way they completely changed things, and not for the better. The show was just ok. Kind of disappointed. 2 stars.

V: This was really a poor adaptation of a good book. Now, I don't think an adaptation has to strictly follow the book - see our Sense & Sensibility review (they improved on the book, and I greatly appreciated it!) The problem with this film is they ruined any suspense. What is the story? A woman finds herself meeting up again with a man she was formerly engaged to but was "persuaded" not to marry. Years have passed. We the readers/viewers want to find out 1) Does she still love him? 2) Does he still love her? 3) Will they get back together? Right? Well, they blurt the answer to #1 in the first 5 minutes. The second, they also blurt too soon. And as for the 3rd, well, of course there are impediments, but they also just blurt their way through them and keep spoiling the surprise. Will he marry so-and-so? The movie, like a bad movie friend, pats your shoulder anytime the slightest hint of the unknown arises, and tells you, "Don't worry, this is what happens . . ." I didn't care for Sir Walter, who was portrayed as caustic rather than just overly vain and foolish. Then there was this weirdness of our heroine chasing after this man -- literally chasing, in an extending running montage. Did women really do that in that place and time? And she was in high society. And then the closing scene with a "gift" that was just silly and totally unjustified by the facts of the story. I was disappointed. We've gotten our hands on another version, here's hoping it's better. I think the leading man is played by the same guy who played Col. Brandon in Sense & Sensibility. That bodes well. I'm sure it must be better than this version. 2 stars.

post-edit: nope, not col. brandon. oh well.

M: V nailed this. I absolutely agree.

Little Dorrit

M: Little Dorrit is a BBC mini-series (14 half-hour shows) that aired in 2008. We recently checked it out from the library. Based on a serial novel by Dickens, published between 1855 and 1857, this series is beautifully done and quite enjoyable. In keeping with Dickens' work, Little Dorrit contains villains that are truly villainous (one of which is annoyingly so), and heroes that are truly admirable. The villains get their comeuppance, and the heroes are rewarded.

Little Dorrit is a girl born in debtor's prison. Arthor Clennam is a wealthy man whose family has a secret he is trying to learn, but he believes it has something to do with the Dorrits, so he sets out to help them. Little Dorrit is played by Claire Foy, and Arthor Clennam is played by Mathew McFaydye, (you may know him as Mr. Darcy.) These characters where compelling, and I found myself really rooting for them. The part of Mr. Dorrit, the gentleman turned debtor turned gentleman, was played masterfully by Tom Courtenay.

Definitely worth seeing, although some of the social commentary is a bit heavy handed at time. This one eeks in at 3 1/2 stars

V: We looked forward to watching this each night. It does take a few evenings. It was well-scripted and interesting. Dickens is always good for DRAMA. Melo-drama, almost. He is a harsh critic of capitalism run amok and shows that greed and ponzi schemes were rampant in 19th century England, too. Too. Interesting that the term "class" today has a positive ring. Many scriptures ran through my mind while watching this that I could see posted at the beginning of the novel, such as "He who exalts himself shall be abased,"" . . . the last shall be first," and all that "captive made free" and "reaping what you sow" business. Well acted. Many interesting characters. Fun Dickensian tangled web stuff. Along with a few things that are spelled out for you, Hawthorne style: the Bleeding Heart Yard; The Circumlocution Office, and allusions to the House of Clennam crumbling to ruins if "the secret" ever got out. You'll have to see the movie. We enjoyed it. 3 stars

On Golden Pond

M: V and I took a break from our Halloween movie spree to watch the 1981 movie On Golden Pond. I am glad we did. I cannot say enough about this movie. Here it is, 11:15 at night, we just finished the movie, and I had to sit down and write. This movie is both heart wrenching and heart warming. Katherine Hepburn and Henry Fonda play two "old poops" (their words, not mine) spending a summer at their cabin on a lake in the woods. They learn to cope with their increasing age and the inevitability of death, while mending their relationship with their adult daughter (Jane Fonda) with the help of her 13 year old step-son to be. The wit and love between the main characters is so fun and touching. Henry Fonda gives a masterful performance, well-deserving of the many awards he received for the part. In fact, On Golden Pond was nominated for academy awards for best picture, best actor, best actress, best supporting actress, best screenplay, and best director (a total of 10 nominations). It won best actor and best actress, deservedly. Chariots of Fire edged it out for best picture. The music and filming are beautiful and add the final touch to this masterpiece. Plenty of swearing, but all done in good humor. This is an absolute must see. One of the best movies I have ever seen. 4 stars.

V: The dialogue in On Golden Pond is some of the best and most charming I can remember in a movie. It was clever and funny and, at times, really touching. The final scene is so very poignant. The acting was wonderful, the setting so beautiful - in New Hampshire - I want to go to there. It really was a pleasure to watch. The relationship of this couple who had been together for decades was so sweet and tender. Am I using "so" a lot? It was just so good. Cuddle up with your sweetheart and watch this. Rated PG. 4 stars.

Count Dracula

M: Over the past 2 nights V and I watched the 1977 BBC miniseries Count Dracula (at 2 1/2 hours it is really a mini series). The part of Dracula was played by Louis Jourdan, and he was really compelling. This movie apparently tracks very closely to the Bram Stoker novel. The show had the right amount of scariness with limited gore (which I imagine is uncommon in a Dracula movie). All and all, a good scary show.

But, and I am going to sound like an old movie hater when I say this, there were some moments of really poor effects that took me out of the moment. Also, a character of an American from Texas was played by a British guy putting on the worst accent I have ever heard, and I lived in England for 2 years and everybody I met tossed their American accent my way. Couldn't they find an actual American to play the role, I am sure there were some in England in 1977. I was even offered a job as a DJ when I was in England by a guy on the street. The BBC should have known better.

Anyway, a good scary Halloween season movie with limited gore and only a few effects that will make you giggle. Not so bad, giggles chase away the boogie man. Oh, and some of the scenes are pretty sexy and may make you blush, but the giggles will chase the blushes away too. 2 1/2 stars.

V: Yeah, some pretty lame effects here and there. For some reason, since it was done by the BBC, and since it was staying close to the book, I thought this would be less scary. But it's still pretty ooky, and scary. Have you seen Gigi? Well, that handsome leading man plays dracula. He really does have the perfect face (mouth) for it. This show gave me the creeps. I guess that's what it's supposed to do. So it succeeded. 2 1/2 stars.

Rear Mirror

M: The other night we watched Hitchock's 1954 Rear Window, staring James Stewart and Grace Kelly. I think this is the first movie I have ever watched staring the famous Grace Kelly. Checking IMDB, she was really not in many movies, and even less classics, for a person with such a famous name. V tells me it is because she married a prince. I can only assume it is because of her striking beauty. Anyway, she was pretty good in this movie. Once again, James Stewart plays a man who is loved by a woman way out of his league to whom he is generally grumpy and rude. What a life. As with all old movies, I have to grade this one on a scale of relativity. It wasn't really as suspenseful as I was expecting, actually it was a bit predictable. But, all in all, it is a decent show with great actors and probably the first movie plot involving a husband chopping up his wife to slowly remove her from the house. All and all, just a light-hearted lark. 2 1/2 stars

V: Can you believe M said "light-hearted" right after a sentence containing "a husband chopping up his wife?" Okay, that's gross. (Post-edit: I was too tired when writing this to realize that M was being sarcastic.) Thank you, Hitchcock, for giving us the hints but not showing the actual disgusting and horrible stuff. I have seen this movie before, but was glad to see it again. I thought it was great! I'm reminded of when I was a kid and liked to imagine up crazy things. It's a good thing to do when you're bored and have a broken leg. I think "predictable" is not always a bad thing in suspense movies. Follow me here . . . part of what makes something scary is that you know trouble is coming. The when and how keeps you interested. And you're sitting there wincing waiting for it to hit you. This movie is not just about the creepy guy, it's about all the people you see through the window and their relationships, particularly the male-female relationships, as Stuart's character is contemplating his own situation with Grace Kelley's character. (Has there ever been a bigger duh?) It's not over-the-top. I appreciate a movie that doesn't make those alarms ("That would never happen in this scenario!") ring in my head. Rear Window has suspense, humor, and sensitivity. I'm sticking with the "Hitchcock is a master" club on this one. 3 1/2 stars.

State of Play

V: I always look forward to seeing Russell Crowe in a movie, ever since A Beautiful Mind. He's just a really great actor. This movie didn't give him a whole lot to go on, though. State of Play must have been sponsored by the Save-the-Newspapers Club. And then there's a whole lotta whodunit and why. Except the "why" is really not there. That's what ultimately made this movie a disappointment. When it all unravels - and oh, yes, it continues to unravel, and unravel . . . - you're left thinking, "Really? Why did . . .? Why would . . .? But wouldn't . . .?" The implausibility of it is pretty heavy. But, remember, it's a good thing there was a newspaper, and not just a blog! So, it's kinda entertaining. Good cast - even Mike's fave, Ben Affleck. And there's an oddly unhilarious turn by Jason Bateman. (His roles should always be hilarious.) But the movie just becomes increasingly irrelevant. Like newspapers. 2 stars.

M: *SPOILER ALERT* Ben Affleck is the actor I love to hate. Russell Crowe, my go-to overrated actor (with the exception of Beautiful Mind and to a lesser extent Cinderella Man). But I think they were both pretty good in this show. I even liked Jason Bateman' s part, he makes me giggle (although he wasn't supposed to). State of Play has some moments that get your heart racing, so it is good there. But, in the end, the movie really loses steam and misses the boat. The whole movie we are led to believe that there is a big masterminded conspiracy afoot, which makes your mind whirl, and revs up the excitement. The twist at the end is that there was no grand conspiracy, and all the events were just the unfortunate acts of a crazy person. There was simply no reason for all the adventure. That bugged me. But I really dug the ongoing ode to newspapers. I mean, really, is there anything cooler than a movie about how great newspapers are? I heard a rumor about a newspaper article about how great movies are, but I couldn't find anyone who had read it. 2 1/2 stars.

Miss Potter

V: We checked this out in the library only to find that my parents own, and love, this movie. Rene Zellweger is an actress who I always think I don't want to see, only to find that she always does a really good job. This is a fun movie based on the life of Beatrix Potter. Who, come to find out, is owed a huge debt of gratitude from those who like some land preserved and not turned into heavy residential or industrial sludge. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Sweet story. The only thing I didn't really love was the way Miss Potter spoke to her "friends", that is, her illustrations. It was more childish than charming for me. I understand the imagination bit, the whimsy, and the loneliness. Maybe I'm a humbug - but Miss Potter seemed to think they were a little too real. It made her look crazy, OK? BUT - that aside, I really liked this movie. 3 1/2 stars.

M: *SPOILER ALERT* I agree with V that, in the beginning of this movie, the use of cartoons is distracting and annoying and probably filled with artistic license (unless Beatrix Potter was schizophrenic). Having said that, the sweetness of the Ms. Potter character, as well as the character played by Ewan McGregor, won me over in the end. My hat's off to McGregor and Zellweger. It was fun to read about Ms. Potter on Wikipedia afterwards and learn that she is the person responsible for the preservation of the lakes district in Lancashire, England. It was weird to learn that she was married, and the love of her life was not the man portrayed as such in the movie. The movie really gives the impression that she didn't marry (it is called Miss Potter - oops spoiler). Anyway, good show, worth seeing, just get past the weird animation bits. 3 stars

Amazing Grace

M: A touching story about one man's continuing fight for the abolition of the slave trade in England. An interesting story, and I learned a lot. I enjoyed getting a peek at the inner workings of the Parliament of the time, and I imagine that much of the dialogue comes directly from actual argument made and recorded during the slavery debates. I did, however, feel that the movie was a bit over-the-top. I know it is an emotional subject, but at times the movie laid it on a bit thick for me. Aside from a tendency toward the overly dramatic, which can be forgiven given the subject matter, I think it is a movie worth seeing. 3 stars.

V: We watched this over a two-day period. It's not that long, just was hard to find the time. (You always like a movie better when you watch it all at once.) I still really liked it. It's worth your time, if only to hear (watch) the story. Some people are called to do things they themselves don't think they can or want to do. But they've been given a gift and if they accept their call, they can do great things. You should see this movie. It's well done, good story, very clean. And that guy sure looks like Alan Rickman (aka Snape)! But it's not him. 3 1/2 stars.

Coming Soon!

Amazing Grace, Ms. Potter, State of Play.

Twilight

M: Well, we finally saw Twilight. Where to start, where to start. Ok, first, I think you have to take what I say with a grain of salt. I picked up the book a little less than a year ago to see what all the hubbub was about, and, although I moaned and complained and made fun of the book the whole time, I kept reading, and eventually finished the third book before I was finally mad enough to vow to never read more (and yet . . .) It is like a grisly car crash that you can't take your eyes away from. You might say of me, "thou protesteth too much." And maybe I do . . . but

Seriously?

First of all, there were times in this movie when I laughed hysterically, and I am sure that is not what they were going for. I certainly wasn't laughing "with" the movie. The movie, like the books, is so painfully cheesy.

My friend, a twilighter (and I think on the Edward team), told me that she thought maybe I didn't like the books because I just didn't understand the kind of love Bella and Edward shared. Admittedly, I don't. I love V, more each day. She is the single most important and best thing in my life, hands down. And what Twilight passes off as love, well, I don't buy it. Bella and Edward have known each other for a week, their conversations have not progressed beyond "I am bad for you, we shouldn't be friends" and "I'm not scared," and their interactions have been limited to Edward holding his perfect chiseled nose and clenching his statue-like fists and Bella trying not to impale herself on the nearest sport apparatus, even for a moment. Yet they are both convinced that they would literally off themselves if they couldn't be together. OK, fine. But in the next chapter along comes Jacob and, well, maybe Belle has this same intense crazy love for him too. I mean, after all, he built her a motorcycle (which she uses to try to kill herself when she thinks she can't be with Edward). Ok, now I am just making myself upset again. But you see my point, right?

Plus, I have daughters, and this movie, and the books, are my worst nightmare. So this guy tells you, "I am no good for you," "I might hurt you," and "I am the bad guy." This same guy likes to sneak into your bedroom and watch you sleep. Oh, and you have no time or thought for your other friends or family because they just don't understand your love, so you exclude them from your life completely and devote yourself entirely to the guy. In the real world, this spells stalker, and that is the best case scenario.

And these are just things that bug me as a guy. Here is an article I saw this morning on MSN with a feminist view.

The movie looked pretty good visually. When Edward threw his little "spider monkey" on his back and ran her through the forests, it was just ridiculous. And the slow motion music video thing got pretty annoying. Otherwise, I loved it. 1 1/2 stars

V: The movie was a pretty good adaptation of the book. That's bad. That's very bad. I actually kinda looked forward to seeing the movie. I thought maybe it could offer something more, something better than the book. But what I found I was really hoping for was something different than the book. Like a movie made from a different book. Because, surely, they wouldn't include this and they wouldn't include that. Right? They would come up with something else, right? I was actually surprised when I saw that the movie had included so much from the book - because I thought it was too ridiculous. It was good for an occasional (unintended) laugh, many rolls of the eyes, and many, many groans of exasperation. The music bugged me so much. I liked the lighting. I thought the main characters were accurately represented by the actors. That's bad. Anyway, we're honestly not just trying to be contrary to popular opinion, here. (After all, we're big Harry Potter fans.) Just didn't like it. 1 1/2 stars.

Coming soon . . . Twilight. And you thought Up created a controversy.

Up

V: I think the only thing I didn't love about this movie is the title. But maybe it was hard to come with something that didn't sound cheesy - and I really had very little idea what was going to happen in this movie after the old man went "up." So I guess that added to the fun. This movie was very funny and very sweet. I almost cried twice. But I held it together. (And you can't prove otherwise because the theater was dark.) The montage of the man and his wife was one of the greatest things I've seen - so sweet. This movie is full of heart, so I don't recommend it to ornery curmudgeons. The rest of you will love it. 4 stars.

M. I agree with V, that the montage and the movie were very-very touching, and up to the point when they took flight, the movie was absolutely fantastic. From there, it got a little silly for me. I didn't care for the bad guy and all his dogs. Maybe I got too much hype going into this one, and had unrealistic expectations. Don't get me wrong, this is a very well done movie, and I loved the idea, and the first half-hour. I just wasn't blown away by where the movie went from there. So, it could definitely be higher, and I am on the fence, but I have to give it, 3 stars.

Forever Strong

M: While watching this movie, my sister-in-law made the comment that sports movies are way more sappy than "Chic Flicks." In this case, its true. This movie heaps on the sap and the cheese without any sense of shame. Not since August Rush have I murmured and shaken my head so much watching a movie. The best part of the show was its giggling and snide comments opportunities. Was the Highland rugby team really so darn nice, and was the team from Arizona really so *$#@ evil. I mean the transitioning from the scenes of one team talking about their brothers who played before, while changing old ladies' tires and visiting children in the hospital, to the other team spitting beer on their friend who wouldn't drink and framing him with drug charges because he wasn't cool anymore. Seriously? Don't get me wrong, I love a sports movie. Hoosiers is classic, and is not itself cheese free. But come on, there has to be a limit. This movie made "The Notebook" look like a documentary about life in the country. Unacceptable. 1 1/2 stars.

V: I didn't see the whole thing, so I won't give a rating. I did pop my head in to watch a couple of minutes in the middle, and had to leave it. I suggest you do the same.

M: You know, some people really love this show, so maybe I am missing something. But is was so overdone. And I am from Utah, home of Highland, and where the movie was made and supposedly took place, and I have never met a goofy Russian with Rastafarian hair like the one portrayed in the movie. We don't have many folks like that here. Not to say it isn't possible, but I have a feeling that was artistic license and comic relief at work. Some cool scenes around familiar places in Salt Lake, maybe that should give the movie a bump in the rating. Mmmm, Maybe.

Star Trek

M: Absolutely loved it. Blew me away. The movie was just the right mix of paying homage to the original while allowing itself the freedom to depart as it needed. Intense from the opening scene. 4 stars.

V: I LIKED this movie. It was really enjoyable. I did not love it, but I LIKED it. I never got bored. It was funny. Fun to see the classic characters reincarnated (in the past). Time travel always gets a little messy though. And there were just too many spaceships. Spaceships are boring. Just my own little bias. 3 stars.

Harry Potter 6

M: A rare full price movie. We try to catch the Harry Potter's in the theater. This was the best looking Harry Potter yet. Amazing. On the other hand, the story did not seem compelling. I loved the book, yet the movie did not do it justice. The movie, like the book, simply moved toward the 7th book, with no real resolution on its own. But, with a movie, it is nice to have some resolution. Also, the Harry and Ginnie in a field scene was not in the book, yet they cut so many things out that were in the book. What's up with that. Also, I didn't like the changes to the end, where Harry had been frozen under a cloak in the book, and he was just kind of hiding in the movie, not as good. Plus, now I hear that the 7th book is going to be split into two movies. That seems excessive. Our Harry Potter in the theater streak may end. Nevertheless, very good looking movie. 3 stars.

V: I agree that it looked great. And I thought there was a lot of fun humor in this movie. The field scene was really weird. And there were tiny things that bugged me making it not a 4 star movie - but otherwise - I really enjoyed it! There were some genuinely scary things in this one - I did jump and grab onto Mike's arm (or was it his head) during the cave with the dead thingies scene. Malfoy is growing on me. And Slughorn was really great. 3 1/2 stars.

M: I agree that Slughorn was fantastic. Not what I imagined, but so good.

Monsters vs Aliens

M: We went and saw this in the Dollar. Not a bad way to go. The kids loved it, and it was a fun movie. It is not going to change your life, but it is pretty good. 2 1/2 stars.

V: The blob guy is super funny, especially when it thinks the boyfriend is really his. Cute show. 3 stars.

We've Been Busy

Coming Up!

Monsters vs. Aliens
Harry Potter
Star Trek
Forever Strong

Paul Blart: Mall Cop

V: It was art film time in our household, so we picked up this little beauty from, yes, the Red Box. This film deals with a variety of classic themes that humanity must deal with: evil vs. good; unrequited love; loyalty vs. treachery; and hypoglycemia. It really got me thinking about the importance of having sugar on hand. And since I'm still thinking about sugar, I'll keep this short. 2 stars.

M: We finally got around to watching this movie. I am a fan of King of Queens, and I generally think that Kevin James is hilarious. And this movie did have some real laugh out loud moments and some good lines. But, all in all, I came away disappointed. The first 30 minutes of the movie was just too sad, and the last 30 minutes too packed with silly action. The criminals were way too athletic, with their flipping and jumping, and there appeared to be no good reason the cops just sat around waiting for Blart to save the day. Also, I didn't really buy the love interest. This movie is pretty funny, very funny in parts. But, the movie definitely does not make my top comedies list, it simply does not compare to the likes of So I Married an Axe Murderer, Tommy Boy, and Dumb and Dumber. I don't know why, it's not like those movies are critically acclaimed masterpieces. Kevin James is capable of real greatness, but I think the writing in this one ultimately held him back. Go ahead and see the movie, laugh a bit, its worth a buck. 2 1/2 stars.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

M: This movie seems to evoke high emotions on both sides. Many I have talked to say they found it long and boring. Many critics loved it. I am on the fence. First, I like the character of Buttons. I thought he was well played, for the most part. Especially young (old) Buttons, who was endearing (When Brad Pitt emerged and the movie turned into a series of beauty shots, he wasn't so endearing). Here are a couple problems I had.

Warning, major spoiler alert.

First, Buttons started as a tiny old man with a baby mind. So he should have ended as a giant baby (like Mork and Mindy's man-baby).

Second, it made no sense that Buttons abandoned his wife and kids. After having been abandoned by his own father, and suffering from those scars, he should know better. His reasons for leaving? He didn't want his wife to have to care for him, and he wanted his daughter to have a grown-up (old) father. Well, his wife ended up caring for him in the end anyway, and his daughter would have had her own father, although young in body and old and wise in mind. (What's wrong with that?) Plus, by the time he was senile, his daughter was grown. Anyway, a tiny senile baby is easier to care for than a full grown senile person anyway, I would imagine. And any child would exchange knowing their father for caring for the father in old age. It seemed like a total cop out. Plus, Ms. Button found a new husband only to cheat on him later with Button. Why?!! I say.

Finally, I have a hard time rooting for characters that frequent prostitutes, and cheat on spouses.

Anyway, I could go on. Like I said, high emotions. And that is worth something. But in the end, this is a visually good looking movie that has no real soul and ultimatly, I think, no point. 2 1/2 stars.

V: What's the point? So it was an interesting concept: a man grows younger rather than older. Yeah it was interesting, but for a show that sure seemed to be trying to be profound, or make some point, I think it failed. They even stuck in this hummingbird twice - obviously symbolic of . . . well, of something, I guess. But you can't just shove things into a piece and say, "Look! a symbol! oooh, deep." So what of this hummingbird? Let's put our high school symbol decoding hats on. First stabs: It represents death, or rather LIFE, and how fleeting it can be, or maybe it's the spirit of someone who has died coming to comfort us when we face death, or when our friends died but we survived, or when we are about to die... Hmmmm. Yessss. Very deep. Something about time. Flying fast? Backward? Anyway, I didn't buy it. What about time? What about life? What about death? That it is? Or that it is (here it comes . . .) CURIOUS? Cinematography and makeup: excellent. Benjamin's mother: great. Felt a little like it was trying to be a Forrest Gump, but lacked the heart. Too pretty for a 2 (fair), too many problems for a 3 (good), so I agree with M: 2 1/2 stars.

The Tale of Despereaux

M: We have been getting our fill of some pretty good animated movies lately. I loved the idea of the mice learning how to be scared, and I laughed at how Despereaux's bravery was so appalling to the other mice. But, as the story progressed, I got a little bored. The storyline wasn't great, and the lessons seemed a bit heavy. All in all, it is a decent show, very good looking, but not great. I struggle where to put this, for me, 2 means average, 2 1/2 above average, 3 means good, 3 1/2 great, and 4 is exceptional. This movie falls somewhere in between above average and good. I have seen a lot of cartoons lately that make this pale in comparison. So I think I will give it 2 1/2 stars.

V: I enjoyed the book, which won the Newberry Award. Although, I felt the end wrapped up a little too quickly. What I really loved about the book was the language. That's hard to translate to film -- which is where the narrator voiceover comes in. That almost always weakens a movie, because they just can't seem to resist stating the moral. People don't like to be told what they've already figured out. (And when they figure it out for themselves, it seems profound, egotistical as we are. When it's stated for us, it seems trite.) For example, I really was enjoying the movie Seabiscuit and then, at the very end, the voiceover came on and said something like, "Seabiscuit may think I healed him, but actually, it was him who healed me." Groan. So anyway, the voiceover weakened Despereaux. I think they filled out the resolution better than the book. My main complaint was that they didn't keep all the story lines tight enough, so that I began to wonder, are they ever going to say anything more about the princess? the rat? Otherwise, it was stylishly done, some good humor and good characters. I agree with M, yet again, 2 1/2 stars.

Bedtime Stories

V: It's been a little while since I've seen this, so the memory's a bit fuzzy. But here's a stab. Pretty cute show all in all. We watched it with our kids and it kept the 4 year-old's attention - at least after magic stuff started happening. We are always apprehensive of Rob Schneider's obligatory appearance in an Adam Sandler movie as he's bound to bring crudeness. Despite our cringing, he kept it PG. There was some funny stuff. It was worth a trip to the red box. 3 stars.

M: Ya, pretty good, all in all. This movie is not going to change your life, but it is nice enough. Worth checking out. 2 1/2 stars.

Bolt

M: I hadn't really heard a lot about this movie. We rented it for family movie night with the kids. At first, I was nervous, but with a twist in the first few minutes, the movie went from cheesy to engaging. The characters are likable, and there is some good humor. All in all, I liked it. 3 stars.

V: We did have some friends recommend this to us. After the initial "seriously?" we really thought it was fun. I particularly liked the hamsters pep talk which lets you know you can do anything "if.you're.awesome!" I enjoyed this movie quite a bit. I give this one 3 1/2 stars.

Hellboy II

M: V and I really enjoyed the first Hellboy (see our full movie review chart). I found it quirky, lovable, and fun, mixed in with some great action. So I have looked forward to seeing the sequel, even though it took a while to get around to it. Man, was I disappointed. This show lacked the things that made the original great. I didn't feel for the characters, even Hellboy himself was just not as engaging. At times the storyline was weak, it felt like it was pointed heavily toward readers of the comics. At other times it was just plain dumb. The romances were lame, and I wanted to punch the German robot man in his metal face, not good. The movie seemed to build toward sequels to come, but now, I am not sure I care if they do come. Very disappointed. 2 stars

V: I don't think I hated it as much as M did. It was very odd and disjointed, though. First movie was much better. 2 1/2 stars.

The Oscars

M. Okay, my rant. Last night we stayed up late and watched the Oscars. Once again, they showered awards on movies nobody has seen, wants to see, or would have ever heard of if the Academy had not nominated them. It seems to me, and this is just my opinion, that the Oscars are so far removed from reality, that they have lost all of their credibility as an award show. They appear to be based strictly on politics and campaigning. What they are not, is an award for the best movies or the best actors. I don't claim to have any expertise in video editing, sound mixing, or makeup, so I won't pick on those awards. But anyone can watch a movie and know if it is good. Why then, year after year, are all the awards given to movies that nobody cares about. We haven't seen them, and if we have, we certainly don't want them in our movie collection.

I, like everyone, have gotten used to the awards going to movies portraying the most "raw" and "real" depiction of some politically hot issue. But, when a movie and actress are nominated and awarded for the portrayal of a woman's affair with a fourteen-year-old boy (I think the current term is pedophile), I have to conclude that they have gone too far. I am not saying that the awards should go to whatever movie makes the most money, or has the most explosions. I am just saying that we deserve an award ceremony for the best movies. Right now, we don't have it.

Coraline

M: Where to start. We were excited to see this, and went out to a late showing on Valentine's day. (Can you say "Romance.") Steve Salles, who we usually agree with, gave the movie 4 stars. And we loved Nightmare Before Christmas (same director), so we had fairly high expectations. As it turns out, this was the creepiest movie I have ever seen. It was well done, and beautiful at times, but absolutely creeped me out. Do not, I repeat, do not, take your kids to this movie, unless you want them to have nightmares about the evil versions of their parents taking out their children's eyeballs and sewing buttons in their place. I am giving this a bonus for looking good, otherwise my review would be lower. 2 1/2 stars.

V: Yeah, I was a little bummed about this one. It was really super well done. But, man! I had heard it described as creepy. It was downright scary. There was little to lighten it up or provide comic relief. Could have been really good, but I think it just stayed too dark and frightening. I saw it described as "horror fantasy." Keep that in mind, and like M said, don't take your kids! There was one scene with a They Might Be Giants song - fans will notice it right off. I guess they (TMBG) were going to do a lot more music for the film, but as it turned more and more creepy, TMBG had to be left behind. I think it would have been better --could have infused some dark humor. As it was, it was just dark. So, on the positive side . . . If you think of it as a Halloween film (as it definitely should have been marketed as such and released then!!) and you're looking forward to being scared - then by all means, go see Coraline. Again, it is really beautifully done, and the 3D was cool, very realistic. So, in the genre of horror flicks, I give this 3 stars.

Eagle Eye

M: Buckle your seat-belts and suspend your disbelief. This show is action-packed. An unknown entity displaying unbelievable powers over people and things compels our two main characters to do its bidding. I was disappointed when I found out who was pulling the strings behind the scenes. 2 1/2 stars

V: Yeah, this show was entertaining if you like a lot of action and car crashes. It was an interesting premise in the Big Brother is Watching You vein. But added to the scare of what might realistically happen in our modern world was this kinda sci-fi villain, which discredited the reality/realistic part. It reminded me of I-Robot, which I really liked, and which (rightly so) just stuck with the sci-fi thing. 2 stars.

Horton Hears a Who

V: Somehow I can't resist calling this "Horton Gives a Hoot", but I guess that works, too. He does, he really does. He's a very sweet pachyderm. This movie has a ton of great voice talent: Jim Carrey, Steve Carrell, Carol Burnett (wait there's a pattern here.) The story is developed well and moves along. My only complaint - maybe I missed it - is I really didn't see why the Kangaroo was soooo dead set against Horton helping his speck. I know, there's a message of intolerance and misunderstanding in there - but I could have used a little more basis for why the WHOLE JUNGLE came together to stop him. Wouldn't they realistically just write him off as a little crazy and let him go on his harmless way? (Like they did for Katie the babbling orange fluffball?) But, it was still an enjoyable little movie. 3 stars.

M: Fun and funny. Not as funny or satisfying as WallE or Kung-fu Panda. Kind of paled in comparison , but worth seeing if you have kids. 3 stars.

John Adams

M: One of the best films I have seen this year. Originally airing on HBO, John Adams is an interesting and inspiring look at the life and times of founding father John Adams. Without sensationalism or over-sentimentalism, the series tells the story of the beginnings of our nation; it simply blew me away. Paul Giamatti, (as John Adams) was brilliant. Laura Linney played Adams' patient and loving wife superbly. This is a must-see. 4 Stars

V: Absolutely. It was so good. I was really sad when we finished watching it. (It is in 7 parts. Each part is over an hour. We ate it up.) Paul Giamatti is just really great, as always. Wonderfully directed, acted, and written. 4 Stars