Big Awesome!!!

I doubt you missed this, because it drowned the internet yesterday, but just in case you did, here you go. 

It's no big deal. It's just...

CAPTAIN AMERICA!!!!

Yep. It's the new official trailer for the upcoming sequel. I am just a little excited. Just a little. As much as I like Thor, I think I'm looking forward to this one even more than that one. There's just something about Cap. He is so... heroic? I can't find the word I'm looking for... Help me out in the comments, won't you?

Anyway, the movie comes out in April, so this is really just teasing us, but I still enjoy it. 

Pitch Perfect: Fun, but Not For Everyone

Tonight, while my husband is away at Scout Camp, I finally got to watch "Pitch Perfect". I had to watch it alone, because (thankfully!) someone warned me that there are songs and dialogue that are rather adult in nature and I didn't want to be surprised with my kids next to me. 

Blu-Ray: Warm Bodies

After reading my dad's article, I decided to watch "Warm Bodies", even though it's a decidedly different movie than my normal selections.

"R", the zombie telling his story through voice-over narration, doesn't know what caused the zombie apocalypse, but there are 3 distinct versions of people left on Earth-- the humans, the "corpses" (zombies as we know them) and "boneys", which are corpses that have given up and rotted into evil skeleton creatures.

Movie Review: The Host

The Host, as you probably know if you are reading this, is a sci-fi romance based on the book by Stephenie Meyer of Twilight fame. The basic premise is that the Earth has been invaded by gentle, sentient beings known as "souls" who take over human bodies (humans are the hosts for these parasites). It's basically Invasion of the Body Snatchers meets... I don't know... Twilight? Teen-ish girl, Melanie, falls in love and then her alien "soul" falls in love with someone else, forming a love quadrangle. Oh, and she's the nicest person around. Flawless, loving, gentle, as all "souls" are. Except that they've invaded a species that doesn't want to be taken, and ruthlessly hunt down any surviving humans.

Unexpected Art Pleasure

Tonight we finally watched the Blu-Ray of "Hotel Transylvania" and while the movie is amusing and has a few good laughs, it's predictable stuff in the same vein as "Monsters, Inc"-- humans are rumored to be terrifying and cruel to monsters, one comes into their world and mayhem ensues, after which they learn that not all humans are horrible beasts. It's cute, formulaic but entertaining enough. And it was nice to finally have a movie the whole family could watch again-- it's been a while since there was something all of us could sit down for together.

But the very best part of the entire showing was the concept art featured during the end credits. Some of the pieces are absolutely breathtaking! I wish I could buy prints to hang in my someday-will-have office. I loved them! My favorites are those that do not feature the characters, with the exception of a couple with silhouettes. Incredible!

The Hobbit: Too Much Movie and Not Enough Story

"The Hobbit" finally opened this weekend, and I liked it. I didn't love it, and I found all the excess stuff a bit... excessive. (If you don't know what I'm talking about, read "The Hobbit" and then see the movie-- Jackson included loads of stuff that isn't in the book. At all. But my son assures me it's from Tolkein's appendices and notes and other stories and that it's all wonderful and will tie everything together with *LOTR nicely. I'm not convinced yet...) For one thing, it is long, and when a film has battle after battle after battle without a lot of story, I get bored of the battles.  But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Wreck-It Ralph: A Review of Sorts

My three youngest children went with their uncle Dave and their younger cousins to see "Wreck-It Ralph" on Wednesday and came home praising it and saying how much they loved it. Adam, 16, said I had to go see it and that I would just love it. Ben, 13, said that I would cry at the end. To which Adam said, "Well, that's not saying much; she cries at every movie." (Which is almost true.)They all enjoyed it, including Katie, 10, who said it was hilarious and they told us that the rest of us should go see it in theater for sure. So we did. Kriss and our oldest, Jonah, 17, went tonight. 

The movie begins strong, with the bad guys in a support group meeting, and there are some funny lines and good sight gags. When Ralph leaves his game and begins an adventure, I thought we would see what happened as he moved in and out of lots of games. Unfortunately, Ralph (and the movie) gets stuck in a game called "Sugar Rush" where adorable little girl avatars race around a "Candyland"-esque world. The story stalls badly (no pun intended) and I quickly lost interest. The little girl that Ralph gets entagled with (she steals his medal, he wants it back... yawn...) is cute, but obnoxious and their sometimes potty-humor-laced banter isn't as funny to me as it would be to a 10-12 year old kid. 

The Bourne Blahgacy...

I probably got my hopes up too much going into "The Bourne Legacy" tonight.  I went in hoping for a movie matching the caliber of 2002's "The Bourne Identity", which is my favorite of the original films. I went in hoping that Jeremy Renner could carry off the action-hero physical-weapon-super-spy character that Matt Damon made so believable and sympathetic. I went in with high hopes that the new director, who did not direct any of the first three films, but was a writer on them, would resist the urge to use shaky-cam close-up shots. I was also hopeful that the story would be compelling, as Bourne's original story was. I was disappointed on all counts, except the camera work, which, while here and there it was shaky, it wasn't nearly as motion-sickness-inducing as the second and third Bourne films were.

The movie begins okay, with Renner surviving in a cold, northern wilderness. He's alone, being stalked by a pack of wolves, and his survival is mildly interesting. Meanwhile, we are shown scenes that make it quite clear that Jason Bourne's story timeline is sort of parallel to Renner's character, Aaron Cross' story. These scenes pepper the movie, which is kind of distracting from the Cross storyline, which begins mild and never really picks up steam.

The whole premise of the story (besides the government trying to kill him-- as required by a Bourne story, right?) is that Cross has run out of his meds, which keep his body and mind in super-human shape, whereas before he was inducted into the program, he was just a mediocre mind... nowhere near as intriguing as Bourne's story of not remembering the program, not remembering what he's done, or anything about himself, drawing us into the unraveling of the secrets of his government program and the lengths they are willing to go to cover it all up. Bourne's character is sympathetic, strong and believable. Cross is less sympathetic, less strong (not physically, but the way Renner delivers his dialogue isn't quite up to the standard set by Damon- maybe this is all in the writing) and a bit less believable.

There are rooftop chases reminiscent of Damon's turn, and a lengthy car-motorcycle chase, and the film ends somewhat abruptly, before Cross and Rachel Weisz's Dr Marta Shearing even begin to develop their relationship. Which would have made the movie better... she was quite good.

There were some good things, and Renner is decent-- he has a good physical presence and the fight scenes were okay, but I wanted more mystery, more cloak-and-dagger action, more near misses and I wanted to feel the sympathy for Cross that I felt for Bourne, but I just didn't.

By far the biggest problem with this movie is that the writers/director felt like audiences would need everything explained to us through conversations, instead of just showing us. Right from the beginning, when one character told another, "You're the director of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America!" I thought, "oh boy... here we go. If they had to have someone tell him that, they must think we're all idiots." Maybe this exposition was necessary, but I found it confusing and, frankly boring. The movie should have started with the scientist shooting things up (you'll know it when you see it). Unfortunately, the action in the movie begins rather late into it. I wanted less talking and more action!

Is it unfair to compare this movie to the original? Renner to Damon? Maybe. But reincarnating a franchise simply begs audiences to do that. Think Bond. Who doesn't compare James Bond actors and films? You can't help it... or Batman movies... or Spiderman.

I do like Jeremy Renner, and I look forward to seeing more of him. I just hope he is better used in the future. Oh and speaking of being underused,  Edward Norton in this movie? Wasted.  And he seemed to know it.

Almost redeeming factor: although there are some s-words, the movie is otherwise very clean. No sex, no nudity, and no f-bombs.

A weird thing-- IMDB says the movie is 135 minutes, but our show started at 4:00 (after 4:00, with trailers and ads) and we were out of the theater at 5:30. Explain that! I wonder if more of the film happens after the credits? Weird. Really weird. Especially since it ended oddly.

For a better review than mine, read this one.

The Batman

My expectations for "The Dark Knight Rises" were somewhat shaky. After the dark, evil tones of "The Dark Knight", I was nervous to see this one, unsure what to expect, and a bit cautious in my anticipation. I knew there was a good chance this one would also be dark and evil, but I have faith in the very talented Christopher Nolan, and though I kept them in check, I did have hope that it would be a more... enjoyable ride than the second film, which was almost a painful experience-- effective, emotive, but agonizing.

"Batman Begins" is one of my most favorite movies, partly because I really appreciate Christian Bale, but also because it was a wonderful Batman movie. Gritty without being overly heavy, emotional without being melodramatic, and the origin story is authentic and heartfelt. Plus I like Christian Bale. A lot. Remember what I said about him at the Oscars this year? Impressed by his recovered classiness and professionalism? Yep. I'm a fan.

Besides the darkness of the second film, I also found myself increasingly irritated by Bale's affected, gravelly voice whenever Bruce put on the mask, and as I recall, I felt like he was in costume more than not, which is fine, but I like to see Christian Bale, and I felt like there was too much mask.

I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. I was thrilled that though it's dark and violent and has some decided brutality, there is a lot more light. Joseph Gordon Levitt as Blake is a bright, fresh face, a great actor in his own right, and Anne Hathaway is a refreshing as Catwoman- she's funny, sexy and butt-kicking-awesome without being campy or too absurd. And there is a lot more Bruce Wayne out of the mask than in the last film, so I was happy on that count, as well.

Bane provides a very frightening villain, though the dialogue was hard to understand-- maybe I rely on being able to see lips moving to be able to really "hear" what's being said, but his character was a great nemesis for Batman. 

There are a few surprises in the film that I won't give away, but the end was deeply satisfying and made it worth sticking with the franchise just for that. I loved this movie- it felt much more like "Batman Begins" than "Dark Knight", which was refreshing-- "Dark Knight" was completely right to set us up for this final film in the trilogy, though I would be fine only watching the first and third in the future... the second movie was very hard for me to watch.

I really wanted this blog entry to better thought out and executed, but I'm frightfully busy and feeling overwhelmed and I've had a broken-brain week, so this is all you get. Sorry it's not my best assessment of a movie. Short version: I liked it. Very much. Especially Christian Bale. Did I mention I kind of like him? 

After 60 Years, Fans Still "Singin' in the Rain"

In celebration this year of the 60th anniversary of the theatrical release of "Singin' in the Rain", local theaters, in partnership with Turner Classic Movies, held special screenings of the film last night. The movie was preceded by a filmed introduction by TCM's Robert Osborne, including clips of him recently interviewing the charming Debbie Reynolds, as well as interview clips with Donald O'Connor and Gene Kelly's widow and others. The interviews were good and quite interesting, but we were all quite excited when the movie finally started.

The theater was almost full, which was wonderful; hopefully that sets the precedent to screen more great classics. Some of us are young enough to have never seen these films on the big screen, and others are old enough to remember just how thrilling it is to watch a great movie in the theater. They truly don't make them like they used to.

I had forgotten just how great this movie is. I haven't watched "Singin'" in years. In fact, I'm not sure whether I've shown it to any of my children or not. I took my youngest, my 10-year old daughter, with me last night, though, and I intend to show my sons the film soon-- she kept commenting that Cosmo reminded her so much of my 13-year old, Ben (and I agree). 

Cosmo is by far my favorite character in the movie; O'Connor was an adorable mix of a Marx Brother and Danny Kaye (kids, if you don't know who they are, I would happily introduce you to some of their better films... after I stop weeping at your cinematic cultural ignorance...). He choreographed the superbly entertaining "Make 'Em Laugh", throwing in the funny bit with the dummy after his backstage schtick proved hilariously entertaining to the whole crew. He was a master of physical comedy, he was a fantastic singer and dancer, and frankly, he steals every scene he is in. Almost.

Debbie Reynolds at 19 absolutely glows onscreen. She was so beautiful and funny and had such a powerful presence that when she's on, it's hard to look at anyone else! She's wonderful. In the interview before the movie, she told how she had never really danced before-- amazing that she was able to keep up with Donald O'Connor and the great Gene Kelly in this film! She was the perfect choice for the role of Kathy and it was so much fun to watch her on that huge theatrical screen.

Gene Kelly directed this movie, and he certainly had a good eye for what worked well. His show-stopping performance in the title song is amazing- he is the ray of sunshine in that rainstorm. Every time I watch this movie, I want to go find some puddles to dance in. Here in Utah, we never get a downpour like the one in the movie (well, maybe not never, but seldom), so I haven't ever reenacted that scene, but wouldn't that be a joy? He makes it look effortless, though it was actually a lot of very hard work: isn't that what great performers do?

I would be remiss if I didn't mention the perfect performance of Jean Hagen as Lina Lamont. She is so funny and so believable and speaking of scene-stealing, she very nearly steals the whole show.

Rare is the movie that is so perfectly cast that you wouldn't change a single actor for another. "Singin' in the Rain" is that movie. It's often been called the "greatest movie musical of all time" and I'm inclined to agree. It's timeless, it's incredibly funny and heartwarming, the drama doesn't slide into melodramatic... it's a really great time at the movies. I am so glad I went to see it on a movie screen. 

My one complaint about this movie is the gratuitous ballet scene. Ugh. I assume that certain scenes were included to showcase Kelly's dancing ability, as well as Cyd Charisse's, but some of it feels like padding. "Broadway Rhythm" is okay, but way too long, and the whole long white veil duet-dance with the fans blowing the veil hither and thither is artistically lovely and yes, they are amazing dancers, but every time a movie musical goes into anything like that (think the even worse ballet in "Oklahoma" or the excessive "Minstrel" numbers in "White Christmas") I feel yanked out of the story. I love musicals, but I rather prefer song-and-dance that at least loosely relates to the actual storyline of the show. Meh... that's just me. And as I write this, I'm realizing that there are a great many songs in shows that don't relate to the story at all, which I do love, so maybe it's just that I'm nitpicky sometimes. 

If it's been a long time (or not) or you've never watched "Singin' in the Rain" you should really go give it another (or a first) look. It's classic, but timeless, cinema entertainment that the whole family will enjoy. I'll be fast-forwarding the aforementioned white-veil dance sequence when I show it to my boys, but other than that I think they'll love it.

Wasting Time on DVD Duds

Last night was a DVD Double Feature for my hubby and me as we took a look at "The Woman in Black" and "This Means War", both new releases on loan from the library. 

"The Woman in Black" is a supposedly scary movie starring Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) as a widower and father of a young boy who is sent by his law firm to a creepy old mansion on a piece of land that is inaccessible when the tide is in (but could be by boat? Not sure... they didn't really use that piece of the story like they could have). The grounds around the place are marshy, damp, foggy and very eerie. The town is haunted by a ghost (a woman in black, no less) who kills their children. Yet they all still live there. Knowing their children could die at any time, they all still live there. Go figure.


I got a little mixed up with the story of the ghost and her motivation, probably because I don't really "do" scary movies and I was busying myself with other things while watching. (A little peek into my psyche: normally I put on a scary movie and don't make it through the first half-hour. Or I put it on for other people to watch and then I leave after the first little bit, later asking them to tell me what happened. This time I stuck it out, but since my son and husband kept commenting throughout, it wasn't as intense as it could have been.)


I did figure it out, though, later, when I sat down to scream every time something appeared where it shouldn't. I screamed quite a few times. It's what I do. My son kept saying "Mother!" in an exasperated voice. Which made me laugh. I tried to hold it in, but I startle easily. Even my husband startles me regularly without trying, so this movie? Yep. Brought out the screams.


It's not really as creepy, spooky or scary a movie as it tries to be, but it does have a lot of startle moments. By the end, though, at the climactic scene where Radcliffe is trying to help the ghost leave and she freaks out and flies at him a couple of times screaming (oh, sorry, was that a spoiler?), I wasn't screaming anymore. I was just curious about him and why he looked more like Kristen Stewart than a man who was being attacked by a ghost! 

Radcliffe is only an okay actor. I never really felt sold on him as Harry Potter, though by the last two of those films I felt he was improving. However, in this movie he just looks serious. And tiny. The man is very small, and unfortunately his facial expressions aren't very convincing. When he has any. We kept saying how this man must not have any fear! He was in this house, alone, all night, and scary things kept happening and he kept seeing things (a hand on a window pane, a rocking chair moving by itself, etc.) and he would go investigate and then just go on with looking through the owners' papers. It was odd. He hardly said a word. Maybe that was done in an effort to create a certain atmosphere. It didn't work. 


Oh, but the creepy dolls? Totally freaky. especially the clown one. *shudder* 

The second movie, "This Means War" is a completely different story. It's the story of two lifelong best friends who just happen to be business partners. Their business? Assasins. Yep. Just like that we've entered a fantasy land. They both just happen to meet and fall for the same girl, played by Reese Witherspoon. She shines, as always, onscreen. She's funny, adorable and authentic, mostly. Her one bad bad bad character choice? Having Chelsea Handler as her best friend. Really. A girl this cute and likeable has a best friend who is trashy, rude, crude, vulgar and... wait. I'm just describing Chelsea Handler. She was (obviously) typecast as a version of herself, and she is just plain awful. She can't act, and her character was so over the top as to be completely unbelievable. Again, why Witherspoon's character would even spend time with her is beyond me. 


Chris Pine is fine as FDR (stupid choice of name, though) and Tom Hardy is okay as the other guy vying for her interest, Tuck. I had high hopes for this movie, as I like Pine a lot (Star Trek, anyone?) and I thought it could be funny. It wasn't. I did laugh about 4 times at various things, but overall it was just stupid. The side story about a Russian spy coming to kill the boys? Utterly predictable. For that matter, the entire last 40 minutes was utterly predictable. Every single thing. Annoyingly, utterly predictable. No surprises and the end wasn't even fulfilling, because by then, who cares? 


I also was disappointed that there was so much sexuality-- I mean, not that it was unexpected, but I really hoped they wouldn't go there-- especially after the guys promised each other not to. So, no one's word means anything anymore? Yep. 


The real question is why I sat through it and didn't walk away. I don't have a good answer. We all make bad decisions, sometimes. Watching "This Means War" was one of mine.

Monday with the Men in Black

Most summer blockbuster hopefuls are what we call "popcorn" movies-- fun, action-filled, witty and just entertaining. You can't think too much about the plots; generally the scripts aren't Oscar-worthy. The stories are simple, the action and special effects are incredible and if you're lucky, you get Will Smith in the bargain! 


This summer has delivered one of the best movies ever: "The Avengers", followed by the lackluster-reviewed "Dark Shadows" (which I've opted to wait to see until the DVD release), and "Battleship", which I won't probably see... uh... ever. There are others, and will be even more in the next few weeks, including the much-anticipated (at my house) "The Amazing Spiderman" and "The Dark Knight Rises". 

Tonight, my husband and I braved the local theater on a Monday night to see "Men in Black 3". As usual, we sat on the back row, half of which was occupied by a group of teenagers, which made me nervous. Until the trailers began and a group of four adults and about ten kids under the age of 10 walked in and sat in the row right in front of us. This would have been fine, except that there was the constant stream of children needing the bathroom and whose booster seats kept clattering to the floor and who talked and giggled and gasped loudly throughout the movie. The experience wasn't as bad as I thought it would be, but it was interesting how the kids (and the teenagers, one of whom, unfortunately, pulled out her cell phone during the movie) just acted like they were at home on their sofa. Sigh. But that's a whole 'nuther blog topic...


As for the movie itself, I really enjoyed it. Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith are still a funny team; the aliens are entertaining and surprising, though as my husband pointed out once before, everything to do with outer space and aliens is always coated in drippy, gloppy slime, which is kind of nasty... The story involves time travel, which never quite makes sense, but is still fun to watch, and a spot-on Tommy Lee Jones impression by the much younger Josh Brolin. He's great-- I don't know that I've ever seen him in anything, though I've heard his name a lot, so it was fun to see him doing something so entertaining.

Smith's quips and one-liners are funny, as expected, and the story takes a sweet turn, while the filmmakers obviously had a great time creating a very colorful 1969, including the launching of the Appollo 11 rocket and other fast-paced historical scenery. It's creative, funny, and I would recommend it to most teen and adult audiences. There are a few s-words dropped here and there, and of course, lots of violence and a scattering of scantily-clad women (this is the new standard for PG-13, right?). I liked it. My husband liked it-- he even managed to stay awake the whole time. That's saying something...

Update: I totally forgot to mention my favorite line from the movie. Will Smith: "I put on my pants!" LOL! I laughed louder than any of the other 20 people in the theater. And not just because I inherited my dad's loud laugh. 

At the Movies

Out here in small-town Utah, we have no giant megaplex-style movie houses. We do, however, have a drive-in, an old two-screen theater and the slightly more modern (I think it was built in the 90's), recently upgraded Cinema 6. Here's what's showing this weekend. I wonder if the movie in theater 6 is a local production...

Like a Girl in an Eye Candy Shop

Wow. Just.. wow.

Logo Image From This Site

I am overwhelmed by the awesomeness that is "The Avengers".


Where to begin?


Story: The fantastic script was both written and masterfully directed by Joss Whedon. Winding these various heroes' stories and back stories together was no small feat. He far exceeded my already high expectations for this story. I was actually nervous that I would be disappointed because I was looking forward to this film so much. He truly surpassed what I was hoping for. Whedon blended together wit, humor, laugh-out-loud comedic moments with a deeply disturbed Loki, scary alien baddies and hearth-thumping battle and hand-to-hand combat scenes (thankfully, with no shakey-cam or extreme close-up cheater shots).


Characters: (Following images taken from HERE )

Thor- I love Thor. He may well be my favorite of the group. He and his blue eyes were amazing in this movie-- dare I say I liked Chris Hemsworth even more this time around? He was funny, smart, and seemed a lot more comfortable both in character and wielding his hammer. And those muscles... wow.

Captain America- Adorable. His solo film was great, but I loved him here even more. Chris Evans just gets better and better. He looks great, the new costume is fantastic, and his sincere-good-boy character is authentic and sweet. He is a fearless, calming force on the team. I thought his character development was great, and his humorous moments were flawless.

Iron Man- Good old Tony Stark returns, full of clever quips, smart-aleck remarks and genius intelligence. He is funnier than ever, brave and stout-hearted. He likes to stir up trouble with his teammates, but comes through when he's needed. I always enjoy his scenes with Pepper Potts, and their two short scenes in this movie were perfect. I like how in each successive movie, his Iron Man suit deployment is improved and enhanced. Clever technology keeps us coming back for more.

Hulk- I've never really liked the Hulk much. His story is so sad and though I enjoyed "The Incredible Hulk" and Edward Norton's turn as Bruce Banner and the "big green rage machine", I wasn't really sure what to expect from Ruffalo. I was floored. In my opinion, Hulk steals the show. I don't want to say more- no spoilers from me, but he is excellent.

Black Widow- I didn't really like Scarlett Johanssen in this role in "Iron Man 2". I felt like she had some good fight choreography, but most of her stuff involved flashy posing for the camera and showing off her tiny body. This time around, however, she is given so much more to do. Whedon really fleshes out female characters well, and Black Widow is no exception. She has heart, substance and gets a couple of the films biggest laughs. I enjoyed the fact that she is able to emotionally connect with each member of the team-- this seems realistic to me. She's not romantically involved with any of them, but women generally have a gift for empathy, and I liked that she has a deep understanding of the men she works with. She is also seriously good at kicking butt, too; she's easy to root for.

Hawkeye- I really like Jason Renner, and I think he's well cast in this role. He isn't given as much to do as some of the others, but what he does is integral to the movie and to the team and I look forward to seeing more of him in this year's new "Bourne" movie.

Others:

Nick Fury- Samuel L. Jackson revises his role, complete with eye patch and long leather coat. I've never really forgiven Jackson for his terrible acting in the Star Wars movies, but certain members of my family tell me I need to give him a chance and that he's actually a good actor, so I tried to with this movie. He was fine. Not bad, not too over-the-top, and probably delivered. I'm not familiar with his character from comic book lore, so I can't be sure, but I was satisfied and not annoyed by him, so that's an improvement.


Loki- Tom Hiddleston returns to wreak havoc on the world. He is fantastic in this role and it is enriched and deepened by Whedon's script and Hiddleston's performance. Superb. I loved him in this movie.


Agent Colson- one of my favorite guys, Colson has some great scenes and, as always, dry, subtle humor that threatens to steal the scenes from the flashier characters around him.


Overall:
Viewers leave this movie feeling so happy and satisfied, I can't say enough glowing things. Just go see it. You won't regret it.


For those sensitive viewers (you know who you are...), there is the expected violence: punches thrown,  cars flipping, explosions, arrows and bullets flying, etc. No more than you expect, though. As for sexuality, this movie is almost squeaky clean, the only exception, really, being the short dress worn by Black Widow at the beginning, but it's not so bad. There is very minimal cleavage-- most kids see much worse in the line at WalMart or even at church, I daresay. She does wear a skin-tight costume, but so do the men. I didn't find any of them offensive in the least. I don't remember any cussing at all...


I had many more intelligent and well-worded things to say about this movie, but my brain is very tired and I can't remember anything else for now, so I'll end here. Go see it. Oh, and stay through ALL the credits, to the very, very end. Not halfway-- wait for the very tail end of all the credits. You won't regret it.
I added more in second entry here. Clicky clicky!!
For more reading fun, check out this great spoiler-free review of the movie from MTV.

Geekyness

As a sort-of geek girl, I do love my superhero movies. I haven't really read a lot of actual comic books, nor do I collect anything specifically superhero-related, but I'm kind of gleefully dorky about the movies-- especially the upcoming "Avengers". I've allowed that movie to mentally overshadow the other two huge films of 2012: "The Amazing Spiderman" and "The Dark Knight Rises", but I will be seeing them opening weekend with my three teenage sons. Maybe the reason for my love of these movies is aesthetic... maybe I just like watching hunky (and moderately good-looking) actors flying and leaping and slashing and shooting and climbing and... hmmm. I think I'm on to something.

So who's your favorite super hero? Who is your favorite actor-as-hero?
Here are a few to get you started:

Christian Bale as Batman? Awesome.

Hugh Jackman as Wolverine

Chris Hemsworth as Thor- yummy...

There are so, so many others, it would fill up many pages, so I'll stop here. I'm really looking forward to all the superhero movies coming out this summer. What about you?

Marvel Timeline

In excited anticipation of the impending release of "The Avengers", I came across this great Marvel timeline website-- check it out!

Musical TV Remakes

Recently I took my daughter to see "Annie, Jr." at our local Jr. High. I was reminded of all the less-than-professional performances my dad attended to support me over the years. She absolutely loved it and even said, "When I go to Jr. High, I think I might like to be in a show..." Yes, my heart was warmed...

She asked later if we could borrow the movie version of "Annie" from my dad. Turns out he no longer has it, but my brother has both the original 1982 Film version and the 1999 made-for-TV remake, with Victor Garber and Kristen Chenoweth. He loaned us both. We started today with the remake version-- I don't remember why I didn't watch it when it aired in 1999, but we enjoyed it together.

I couldn't help but draw comparisons between "Annie" and the 2003 made-for-TV remake of "The Music Man" which also features Garber and Chenoweth. "Annie" is so far superior to the weak effort of "The Music Man", it's impossible to not see the differences. Of course, I only watched "The Music Man" the one time it aired, and vowed never to watch it again-- I like Matthew Broderick well enough, but his presence and voice weren't up to the role of Harold Hill. And, frankly, Chenoweth is talented, but she simply didn't fit Marion. I adore the original theatrical version, and I was so annoyed by the remake that I think I didn't dare watch the TV "Annie" on DVD, expecting it to be just as weak and depressing.

But I've been pleasantly surprised. Kathy Bates? Brilliant. I thought Carol Burnett was perfect in the theatrical version, but Bates brought her own thing to the role and it was excellent. And Audra McDonald was wonderful, as expected. It was fun to see the show with a broadway-caliber cast. And the little girl who played Annie was spectacular AND her hair wasn't distractingly obnoxious.

If you haven't seen it, check it out! But I vote for avoiding the 2003 "Music Man". Unless you like torture-by-TV.

Playing Movie-Catch-Up

Last night we finally got around to watching "Moneyball". Brad Pitt's incredibly attractive aging notwithstanding, this is a very good movie. I wasn't quite sure what to expect, but it was generally well reviewed, and, of course, it was nominated for 6 Academy Awards. That doesn't always equal movies I like, but in this case, I thought it was worth a look. Pitt's performance is solid-- charming, witty, passionate, and authentic. And, yes, still hunky at 48 years old. He reminds me a lot of Robert Redford, and I really think he has matured as an actor and is easily one of the better actors working in movies today.

Jonah Hill was perfectly cast, as well. I haven't watched him in anything, so I didn't have any expectations or preconceptions, and I really enjoyed him. The rest of the cast was great, the directing was tight and the story enjoyable even for a non-baseball fanatic like myself. It's definitely worth your time.

Tonight we had a double feature, catching up on movies we missed last year that are now out on Blu-Ray. First up was "Tower Heist" featuring Ben Stiller, Eddie Murphy, Matthew Broderick and others. I wanted to like this movie-- who doesn't enjoy a fun caper movie where the little guy gets the evil, rich jerk? And I keep wanting so badly to see a film with Stiller that has something new, something different from what we've seen, or if he can only do the one schtick, at least a fresh face on the schtick. Not so much here. In this film, he seems to be basically channeling his museum security guard character from "Night at the Museum"-- it wasn't unpleasant, but felt like I'd seen it all before.

Murphy seemed to be trying to return to his "Beverly Hills Cop" persona, but the angry-black-man bit just isn't funny. The sexual humor wasn't funny, the yelling and cussing was overplayed and obnoxious, and he just wasn't funny. I wanted SO much more from him, especially.

And then there was Broderick. Matthew Broderick has been trying for a while now to reignite his film career, and while I sympathize (I thought Ferris Bueller was adorable!!), he seems to be just missing the mark. His performance in "Heist" wasn't bad, it was just a bit bland. And who the heck did his makeup??!! Terrible! Just awful. I realize movie stars feel like the rest of us about aging, only moreso, but I don't think a bad makeup job is going to help.

This movie was a dud, not worth the money they spent making it, for sure... and not a family movie...

The second movie tonight was "The Big Year" starring Steve Martin, Jack Black and Owen Wilson. This was pretty good, but my husband thinks that was mostly because we watched it so soon after "Tower Heist", but I thought it was pleasant and entertaining. And mercifully clean, except for a few cusses. The story was about the three of them trying to accomplish a birding record for spotting the most birds in one year and the way their obsessive hobbies affect the other aspects of their lives. It was a light, gentle movie, with sweet, genuine characters and believable sub-stories. I enjoyed it a lot and would recommend it. It's a refreshing change from the usual shoot-em-up movies we watch around here.

CGI Planet...

For New Year's Eve, we had a blu-ray double feature, starting with the amazing "Captain America", which we've seen before but loved and wanted to watch in blu-ray. The second movie was "Rise of the Planet of the Apes".

I hesitated to watch this movie at all. For one thing, having grown up with my father, I've seen the classic original film a couple of times, and I wondered how they would tell the back story for that movie with all the modern CGI bells and whistles without ruining the story, and to be honest, I anticipated it being quite scary. I don't like the idea of human subjugation whether to superior aliens or to apes, so I was really nervous. It has been many years since I saw the original "Planet of the Apes", though, so I didn't remember all the details.

This movie starts out with a bunch of science-y stuff setting up the story of one chimpanzee, Caesar, and the human who raises him, who is a scientist trying to find a cure for Alzheimer's (which his father is in the later stages of), testing a viral concoction on chimps. Caesar has had the virus passed to him by his mother, in vitro, and as such has superior intelligence and cognitive skills. The CGI Caesar is pretty dang good, though he strikes me as being very tall: nearly as tall as James Franco by the end, which I suppose could be possible, because Franco is only about 5'10" and chimps can get as tall as 5'5". Still... it was distracting... and I'm not a huge fan of movies that are 90% CGI...

There were more than a few laughably stupid things, such as the sudden, unexplained explosion in numbers of the chimpanzees. Inside the chimp rescue facility, they show what looks like about 50 chimps, one gorilla and one orangutan, but when they escape, suddenly the hillsides are crawling with hundreds of chimps, multiple gorillas and at least two orangutans. This was before they had visited the zoo and the research facility to free the rest of their buddies. After that it looked like many more, maybe a thousand! Kind of made me wonder how many chimps live in that city in the real world?? 

Another silly thing was having Tom Felton (suppressing his English accent fairly well; there was really only one slip that I caught) actually say the famous Charlton Heston line from the original film: "Take your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty ape!" It was laughably bad and completely inappropriate for his character. 

There were a lot of campy "money shot" moments, as well, such as when Caesar speaks for the first time (in the scene above), or when Caesar, a gorilla, an orangutan and another chimp are all standing on a car on the highway and the camera pans back and stops as though they've posed just for us... and I doubt that apes could repeatedly leap through plate glass windows and emerge without any injuries.

I don't mean to be heartless, but I really had a hard time rooting for the apes in the movie. I had little sympathy for them. The abusive "rescue" facility was so contrived and obvious as to be almost cartoonish, and the animals were so violent to so many innocent people that I had no sympathy for them at all. In the battle for supremacy, I will always root for the humans...

My husband pointed out that had they started the movie about 2/3 through and told the story of the actual rise of the apes, it would have been a better story. The actual back story that sets up the classic movie was the only interesting thing, and it happened during the closing credits, rather than during the movie... I would have liked that a little more, as well.

All in all, it was a so-so movie. The plot moved slowly, the acting was just okay, and while the special effects were excellent, the script didn't really hold up to the standard of the effects.

One other note, I realized my son who watched this movie with us will never have that moment of shock and surprise at the end of the original movie when Heston realizes he's been on Earth all along... this movie kind of ruins that twist for new viewers of the classic film... kind of too bad.

Mission... IMPOSSIBLE!

Midway through a long day of last-minute Christmas shopping (of which I am so NOT a fan), my husband and I went to see the new "Mission Impossible" movie today. He was happy to be out seeing a movie instead of at work, and I was happy to be seeing Josh Holloway again... at least, I thought I would be happy to see him again... because his name is in the first 10 or so names in the credits... and I stupidly got my hopes up that he would be an actual character of note. Friends of mine (also shameless "Lost" fans) had speculated that maybe he was one of the baddies... which we would have enjoyed. He became my favorite on "Lost", and I was so excited to see him doing something new.  So imagine my disappointment, when he appeared in less than 5 minutes of film. Wha??? I was very disappointed. I won't say more, because I don't want to be the spoiler lady.

As far as the film itself, I liked it. It was exciting, had some breathtaking scenes and was well cast. I'm not a huge Tom Cruise fan, but I like the other members of his team in the film quite a lot. Simon Pegg is excellent, as always, and the casting of Jeremy Renner as Agent Brandt was brilliant. I am giddily awaiting the release of "The Avengers" next year, in which Renner plays "Hawkeye". He had a small part, little more than a cameo, in "Thor", and I liked him then. In "Mission", he's funny, charming and very believable as an ISA agent.

The movie is a little bit Bourne and a little Bond, adventurous, stunt-heavy with a barely believable evil plot to destroy the world. There were some fantastic moments where I cringed, clutched my husband's arm, and held my breath.

I can't bring myself to pay nearly $9 for a movie ticket, so we went to a matinee, and it was a full theater, and we only had a couple of idiots with cell phones. I've learned that if you sit on the back row, energetic tweens won't distract from the movie by kicking your seat the whole time. Unfortunately, so have a lot of other people, so our row was packed, elbow-to-elbow, but it was a fun time.