The Time Traveler's Wife

M: I don't want to lose my man card, but I kind of liked this movie. Maybe its because I like the notion of time travel, and it was interesting to see what they did with that. I didn't really care for the relationship in the movie, which I suppose is pretty important. I hated the notebook, same actress, way too sappy. This relationship also dripped a bit of sap, but not nearly as bad. It felt like the relationship moved too quickly and then went backwards though. The first time they meet, at lease that the viewer sees, she is madly in love with him and they jump in the sack. A little while later, he is gone for a few weeks and she is intensely mad at him. This after a lifetime of his being gone most of the time, which she didn't seem to mind? Not buying it. In the end though, I loved the idea of his moving through time and how it came together, especially with his daughter. That saved this from being another lame over-the-top romance. 2 1/2 stars

V: Interesting concept. My disbelief was almost immediately un-suspended though by the way they were so matter-of-fact about the whole time-traveling thing. This poor little boy loses his mom in a car crash, and immediately this weird man shows up and says, "It's okay, I'm you. I time-traveled here." Only the friend of the wife's friend seemed to show some real dismay at the idea. Okay, other than that . . . It made for some good - wait, pause the movie, let's talk about these time-travel implications - moments. But that is outside of the movie, isn't it. The end had me a little teary, not because of what the movie achieved really - but the thought of *Spoiler* seeing your husband again after he had died - yikes. And what does she do? She smiles pleasantly and holds her daughter at her side as he disappears again. No! That is the time for the tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth! What was that blithe "See you maybe some other time for a couple of minutes love." Arg. So, it was kind of interesting, but not particularly well-executed, I thought. 2 stars.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

V: I just want to remind you all that I was a big fan of Robert Downey Jr. long before Iron Man came about. College roommates? Back me up on this. So, I really enjoy a good suspense/mystery movie every now and then. I thought both Downey and Jude Law did a great job. The story was interesting. I thought it was a good romp. The Rachel McAdams character was just all right, for me. It felt like they were just trying to fit in a female character, affirmative action style. It could have been a better character. Apparently she was a super-thief, but then, oh dear, the girl got in "over her head," to quote from the movie. She was supposed to be Sherlock's equal. She didn't come off very experty to me. Anyway . . . I otherwise enjoyed it. Good fun. 3 1/2 stars.

M: Yea, I am with V on the McAdams' character. I didn't see the point, except to add a pretty face. Which I guess doesn't hurt. I mean, if you are going to have Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law, it is, after all, only fair to throw something in for the guys. So, ok, I talked myself out of not liking her part. Otherwise though, the movie was just ok for me. I thought Jude Law really stole the show, taking Watson, a historically forgettable character, and making him really interesting and likable. Downey, as usual, was quirky and dark and good. Watson definitely should have died though in the big explosion he got caught in. No way he survived that. So, I was a bit annoyed with that. I am really torn. I definitely could go a bit higher, but I am going to have to give it 2 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.