| Movie | Rating | Review | Date | Your Rating | Match | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deja Vu - PG-13 |
Yes, it's movie review time again! I've been watching baseball lately so the movies have been sitting, but yesterday the Cubs weren't televised and I had no desire to watch the Twins. Last night's film was Deja Vu starring Denzel Washington. Summing this one up without giving away some spoilers is going to be difficult, but I'll try. Denzel is an ATF agent investigating a ferry that was blown up on the Mississippi River near New Orleans. It was a terrorist act and there's an alphabet soup full of agencies trying to find out who was responsible. One of these agencies recruits Denzel to work with them because they need someone who can study a crime scene quickly. But they're not always telling him the truth and the secrets they're keeping are mind blowing. Not a great summary, but it's the best I can do without giving away spoilers. Anyway, my thoughts on this movie. Denzel Washington was looking fine and he played a very likable character that the audience could root for. He's by far the best part of the film and the main reason why I stuck through it until the end. The plot sounded promising and interesting, but while it had potential, I don't think it was realized. When it was advertised on television, it sounded as if there'd be a fairly strong romance going on, but that's not true. There's pretty much no romance at all between Denzel's character and Claire. I could live with that. The biggest problem was that for a movie that was supposed to a taut thriller, I thought there was very little suspense. Another problem was that the only character I cared about was Doug (Denzel). I didn't know his partner, so I didn't give a rip what happened to him and I didn't care about Claire. Although we were given peeks into her life and that was supposed to make her real, there was simply very little depth to what we were seeing, and consequently, she came across as two-dimensional. Bottom line: I can't recommend this movie. 2.5 stars and that's only because of Denzel |
July 29, 2007 | N/A | |||
| Night at the Museum - PG |
Ben Stiller plays Larry Daley who dreams up schemes to make money, but none of them ever pan out. He's been evicted from apartment after apartment, had a boot put on his car, and it cost him his marriage. Now, it might cost him his son, too. Faced with the need to get a regular job and put some stability into his life for the sake of his child, he takes a job as the night watchman at a natural history museum. Three guards (Dick Van Dyke, Mickey Rooney, and Bill Cobbs) used to hold the jobs, but museum attendance has been low and they're replacing them with a less experienced new guy. Dick Van Dyke leaves instructions for Larry on the job, but of course, he doesn't read them. Until.... It seems every night the exhibits in the museum come to life. That includes the stuffed lions, the skeleton of a T-Rex dinosaur, Attila the Hun and everything else they have there. T-Rex almost kills Larry before he reads the instructions and discovers what to do. He ends up losing them to a monkey, but Theodore Roosevelt (Robin Williams) helps him restore order. Larry talks to the trio he's replacing, but there are no second set of instructions and Dick Van Dyke tells him to study. Larry does and he feels better prepared to face night two at the museum, but it doesn't go that much better than the first. His son arrives at the museum in the morning with two friends, just in time to hear the director fire his dad. Larry convinces the museum head to give him another chance and he brings his son to work, wanting him to see how everything comes to life. Only nothing does and he discovers the Egyptian tablet that caused this curse has been stolen. The rest of the movie covers Larry trying to stop the thieves and get all the exhibits back inside the museum before the sun comes up. If anything from inside the museum is outside at sunrise, it turns to dust. Overall, the film was cute. I'm not a fan of Ben Stiller, but he wasn't obnoxious in this movie so he was watchable. The beginning is full of stuff with his ex-wife and son which was pretty boring, but was supposed to set up why he was willing to take the night guard job and stick with it. I think the writers could have done a better job with this part, but once Larry is actually at the museum things pick up. What didn't I like? There were some big logic holes, especially in the scheme to rob the museum. Actually, the movie was riddled with logic holes, but I decided to just ignore them and enjoy the film for what it was. There was also the excruciatingly slow beginning of the picture and the start of what looked like was supposed to be a romance between Larry and a museum docent which never really got off the ground. What I did like. The best part of the movie was when Larry attempts to stop the thieves and retrieve what's already been stolen. How he gets the museum exhibits to work with him was fun and the dramatic conclusion kept me entertained. I also really liked the concept of this movie, which was clever and fun. While it could have been better and the setup should have been greatly improved, the nights at the museum are worth the boring stuff it took to get there. Rating: 3.25 stars out of 5. |
May 27, 2007 | N/A | |||
| Stranger Than Fiction - PG-13 |
Last night, I watched Stranger Than Fiction starring Will Farrell and Emma Thompson. The movie was released in 2006, and while I'm going to try my best not to reveal any spoilers, I can't promise that, so if you don't want to risk anything being given away before you see the film, you better click away now. Will Farrell plays IRS Auditor Harold Crick. One day, he begins hearing a voice and it sounds as if it's narrating his life. No one else can hear it. He sees a psychiatrist and she tells him he's schizophrenic. Harold insists that he isn't. The voice isn't telling him what to do, it's just telling his life like a story. The doctor tells him that maybe he should see someone familiar with literature. Enter Dustin Hoffman as a college professor. He thinks Harold is nuts too--until he mentions that the narrator said: "Little did he know..." Along the way, Harold falls in love and he doesn't want to die. The question is, will he be able to stop it? I really liked this movie. Maybe it's because I'm a writer and I feel like my characters are real, but after watching this, I was so glad I write romance. I'd hate to kill one of my people. Especially since they come in as fully-formed human beings. What if they are real? You never know, especially after watching this movie. :-) Will Farrell, who I normally don't like, played this role perfectly. I didn't think of him as an actor, but as Harold Crick. His reactions to something weird were wonderful. The things I didn't like? While the movie got a lot right about being an author, it got a lot wrong too, at least in my experience as an author. This was more like Hollywood's vision of what it's like to be a writer. First off, Karen Eiffel (Emma Thompson) has writer's block for like 12 years. I understand the block, but 12 years? Second, her publisher sent an assistant to help her finish the book that she was 10 years over deadline on. Ten years! Um, yeah, sure they're going to pay for an assistant to help an author that they can't be counting on at this point to deliver anything. My guess is that they're more likely to have written her off by now. And wow, her early books must still be raking in the royalties because she hasn't had to get a day job for that ten year period and she still has a pretty damn nice apartment. Speaking as an author who hasn't even been able to seriously consider quitting her day job yet, my response was, "yeah, right." My other quibble is the romance between Harold and Ana. I wanted more here because I found it difficult to buy they'd developed feelings for each other so quickly. Still, it was sweet and I liked the two characters together. Overall, though, the movie was a very enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours. It's not laugh out loud funny, IMO, but the characters are people I cared about and I wanted things to all work out. My rating: 4 Stars |
March 4, 2007 | N/A | |||
| Moulin Rouge! - PG-13 |
This week's movie is Moulin Rouge! starring Nicole Kidman and Ewan McGregor. It's from 2001 and I'm sure everyone's seen it already, which is probably a good thing since I'm not sure how to review this movie. ___Warning: Spoiler Alert___ There will be spoilers, so if you haven't seen the movie and plan to, stop here. The basic storyline is that a penniless poet, Christian (McGregor), goes to France, meets up with a group of performers and becomes their playwright. They go to the Moulin Rouge to encourage Satine (Kidman) to star in their play. Satine is a cabaret performer and a courtesan. Because of a mix-up, she believes that Christian is the duke she's supposed to have an assignation with. They fall in love. The duke is wildly jealous. They pretend it's part of a play which the duke bankrolls. He's still wildly jealous. Etc. TBH, I'm not sure what to think of this movie or how to review it. I was mulling over what to say here from the time the disk ended. When the film started, my first thought was what the hell is this? By the time I reached the end, I'd decided I liked it and that it had charm and wit. It's not something I'd like to see again, but it was an entertaining show. Normally, I try to give thoughtful reasons about what did and didn't work for me, but I can't really do that this time. I did like the way the music was used and that modern music was in a movie set in 1900. I thought the duke's obsession with Satine was overblown and that her death was conveniently timed, but I'm not sure any of this mattered. I think the plot was merely there to hang the songs on and that it was kind of beside the point. And I believe this is why I have trouble coming up with a cogent review. I'm rating this on the Netflix scale on which 3=Liked it and 4=Really liked it. 3.5 stars |
February 18, 2007 | N/A | |||
| Norbit - PG-13 | February 11, 2007 | N/A | ||||
| Sliding Doors - R |
Sliding Doors is a movie from 1998 starring Gwyneth Paltrow, John Hannah and John Lynch. Just a warning, there very possibly will be spoilers so if you haven't seen the movie yet and think you might want to, don't read any farther. Helen (Paltrow) leaves her live-in boyfriend (Lynch) in bed and goes to work--late. When she arrives she's fired. She leaves to return home. In one version, the doors to the tube (It's in London) close just before she gets there and she misses her train. In the second version, she just makes the train. From here on out, the movie weaves between these two alternate time lines. In version one, Helen tries to find an alternate means home. She hails a taxi, gets mugged and has to go to the hospital for stitches. When she arrives home, her boyfriend, Gerry, is in the shower alone, and while he's acting strangely, she accepts his explanations. Helen can't find another PR job and ends up working two jobs while her worthless boyfriend claims to be writing his novel. In version two, Helen sits on the train next to a charming man, James, (Hannah) and arrives home in time to catch Gerry in bed with his former girlfriend. Helen goes to stay with her friend, starts her own PR business and develops a relationship with James. I think I will stop the plot summary here. The story, though, spans something like a year and the two scenarios are intertwined, showing the possibilities and how different things can be by such a simple little thing like missing the train. I totally loved this movie. I loved it so much, I want to buy a copy so I can watch it again whenever the mood strikes. I read some reviews after I was finished that pointed out the flaws, but quite frankly, I didn't care. The story transported me and my author's brain was chugging away, going, wow, what a cool idea. I love the concept of alternate realities and parallel lives. The critics pointed out that neither story was all that strong, but the truth was, neither story needed to stand alone. The whole concept was to weave them together. The other criticism, that Gerry was a complete louse, etc is better founded. Gerry is a complete jerk, but John Lynch manages to make him come across in such a way that we can see why Helen would be prone to believe him. The woman he's having an affair with also is a bit two-dimensional, the bitchy other woman, but that didn't matter to me either. I cared about Helen, I adored James and was rooting for them as a couple. There were several points where the juxtaposition of the two realities were so tight to each other, I was like, wow, this is so cool! For example, in one reality, Helen is standing on a boat with James keeping pace with a boat race--sculling, right?--and cheering them on. In the other reality, Helen is walking along the river with the boat race and James is with a buddy on the pace boat. She doesn't notice him, just the racers, but makes a comment about how she knew there'd be a boat race. That was another aspect I found interesting--the bleed through between the lives. The very end closes with this idea and intrigues me all the more with the story. How connected are we to our alternate realities? Are our deja vu moments something that's come through from one of these realities? Good romance, a likable heroine, intriguing ideas, and a hopeful ending. (I was worried about that for a moment.) Who could ask for more? I totally, completely loved this movie. My rating: 5 stars |
February 11, 2007 | N/A | |||
| Shakespeare in Love - R |
It's strangely coincidental that last week's movie was A Midsummer Night's Dream and this week's movie is Shakespeare In Love. I honestly didn't plan it that way. This movie stars Joseph Fiennes as Will Shakespeare and Gwyneth Paltrow as Viola. Will Shakespeare needs to write a play, but his muse is on vacation. He seeks a woman to inspire him. Eventually, after a misstep, he finds Viola, a woman from a wealthy family. Her father has bought her a title in the form of a penniless nobleman who she's supposed to marry in a couple of weeks. For her part, Viola is enamored of Shakespeare's words. While everyone else in town seems to be lauding Marlowe and his works, she prefers Shakespeare. So for some reason I didn't understand (I'll confess, I was multi-tasking while watching), she dresses up as a boy and reads for the role of Romeo. Back then, only males were allowed to be on the stage. Shakespeare thinks she's perfect for the role and wants her to take off her hat. Viola runs, but goes back with a male wig, facial hair and with her breasts bound so she takes on a more male appearance. Viola quickly falls in love with Will Shakespeare and kisses him in her guise as a boy. Her identity as a woman is revealed while he's standing there befuddled and he chases her. They fall into bed together and Viola's nurse/chaperon covers for the lovers. Much of the rest of the movie is the rehearsal of the play, more covert kissing and fondling by Will and Viola and Will producing more brilliant scenes every day. Until the culmination with the opening performance where Viola takes the stage not as Romeo (Will has to fill that role), but as Juliet. I know this movie won awards and stuff, but mostly I was bored with it. While there were a few moments that I enjoyed, overall, I wasn't overly impressed. Maybe I was expecting too much because I'd heard how good it was, but I found my attention wandering easily. There were some things that made it difficult to suspend my disbelief. First, was that Viola would risk appearing on the stage. It was unheard of at that time, so why do it? I didn't feel as if her motivation was strong enough to support that. Second, how easily she fell into bed with Will. Now granted, my grasp of European history in that time period is shaky at best, but I thought women were expected to remain chaste. Even if she was the maverick that appearing on stage would suggest, it just felt wrong that she would have sex with him so fast and with so little conversation between them. Third, I had trouble believing that someone like Shakespeare who produced so much work (and beautiful work at that) would need a muse. This is where my being a writer gives me a tough time with something most people wouldn't examine too closely. A working writer doesn't wait for the muse to show up. If we waited for the muse, I think most writers would get about 3 or 4 days of writing in a year. Nope, a working writer sits down and writes even if it's gritted out one damn painful word at a time. The real Shakespeare would have known this, I'm confident of it. So what did I like? I loved Judi Dench as the queen! She was brilliant in the role and she was the one person/thing that stood out for me in the movie. The end, when she's at the playhouse and setting things right (or as right as they can be), is by far the best part of the entire film and a payoff for the preceding 2 hours that bored me. The queen had a sarcastic wit and a keen eye as well as a deep understanding of human nature and the way Dench portrayed this was fabulous. Overall, maybe I was expecting too much, but I found the movie boring and the main characters of Will and Viola lacking in motivation. I never believed the romance between them or had any real interest in it, nor did I care that the ending wasn't happily ever after. (I'm trusting this doesn't spoil the movie for anyone since it's from 1998.) It wasn't a horrible way to spend a couple of hours, but the only parts I truly enjoyed were when the queen was on screen. My Rating: 3 stars |
February 4, 2007 | N/A | |||
| A Midsummer Night's Dream - PG-13 |
This adaptation of William Shakespeare's play stars Kevin Kline as Bottom the weaver, Michelle Pfeiffer as Titania, Rupert Everett as Oberon an Calista Flockhart has Helena. The movie really features three separate story lines. There is the story involving Kevin Kline. He's part of a group of craftsmen rehearsing a play to perform for the grand duke's marriage celebration. There's the story of the fairies and an argument between Oberon and Titania over a young boy from India. And the third and final story is four young lovers, Helena, Hermia, Lysander and Demetrius. Demetrius is engaged to Hermia, but Hermia and Lysander are in love. They decide to run off together to prevent her marriage to the wrong man, but they confide in Helena. Helena is still in love with Demetrius, and hoping this will win his favor, she tells him of their plan. Oberon enlists Puck to retrieve a flower that has an essence that, when rubbed on a person's eyes, makes them fall in love with the next person they see. He plans to use it on Titania to get his way about the boy. When he sees the poor way Demetrius treats Helena, he tells Puck to put some on the young Athenian's eyes. Puck, of course, mistakes the man and puts it on Lysander's eyes instead. He sees Helena when he first awakes and falls madly in love with her. Demetrius also gets a dose and likewise is in love with Helena. Both men chase her, spurning Hermia, who becomes angry. Helena thinks the men are mocking her. Meanwhile, the group of craftsmen are rehearsing their play close to where the fairy queen sleeps and Puck gives Bottom the head of an ass--complete with big ears. Bottom wakes Titania who has also had the essence put on her eyes. She becomes enamored of him and dotes on this mortal who looks like a donkey. I adore Shakespeare. I took a class when I was in college, and since then, I've read (or reread) his plays for fun. The man really was brilliant. I saw A Midsummer Night's Dream on stage when I was a freshman at the U of MN Morris and A&E has shown a taped version of the stage play on their channel a few times. I mention this so you know that I have some familiarity with this play and that it's one I like. Overall, this version of the story wasn't bad, but unless I'm remembering everything horribly wrong, the film did my least favorite thing--they moved the play's setting to another time and place than Shakespeare intended. The Guthrie Theater does this all the time and I can't tell you how much I loathe it. For an example, I was watching Tartuffe by Moliere and enjoying the hell out of it--until the end when the actors (who up until that point had been in period costume) came out in 1930 gangster outfits complete with tommy guns and a car. This was a definite "Say what?" moment. My memory of A Midsummer Night's Dream is that it takes place in Athens and before the 1800s. The names in the play--Lysander, Hermia, Theseus, etc., as well as some of the references to Athens--lead me to believe my memory is correct. Unfortunately, that means this movie was moved to Italy in the 1800s and that leaves me a very unhappy viewer. That said, Kevin Kline did a brilliant job as Bottom. Of course, I do love Kevin Kline, so again, I'm biased. I thought Michelle Pfeiffer also did well as did Rupert Everett. I didn't quite get why Oberon wanted the Indian boy and why Titania didn't want to give him up nor did I understand why she wasn't angry later when Oberon did get the Indian boy. It seems to me she would have tried to get the kid back since she'd promised his mother to watch over him, but she just kind of shrugged and all was well between her and Oberon again. I can't blame the movie for this, though. All the actors and actresses did a credible job with the dialog IMO. Sometimes modern actors doing Shakespeare come across as stilted, like actors reciting Shakespeare rather than being their characters, but there wasn't one person in this movie that didn't do well. The scenes/setting of the film were beautifully done and added to the authenticity of the time and place. No matter how briefly the setting appeared in the movie, it appeared as if all pains were taken to ensure it was well accomplished. What didn't I like? The time and place used--as I mentioned above. I also didn't like the constant use of bicycles in the film. Even Puck, instead of using magic, rides a bike at various times. My other problem was that this is supposed to be a comedy, but there was very little that was staged to be funny until the end when Bottom and his group of craftsmen do their play. If you enjoy Shakespeare, this might be worth watching, otherwise I'd rent Much Ado About Nothing. My rating 3.5 stars. |
January 28, 2007 | N/A | |||
| My Girl - PG | January 21, 2007 | N/A | ||||
| A.I. Artificial Intelligence - PG-13 | January 21, 2007 | N/A | ||||
| Beethoven - PG | January 21, 2007 | N/A | ||||
| Stuart Little - PG | January 21, 2007 | N/A | ||||
| Wild Wild West - PG-13 | January 21, 2007 | N/A | ||||
| Secret Window - PG-13 | January 21, 2007 | N/A | ||||
| Yours, Mine & Ours - PG | January 21, 2007 | N/A | ||||
| Austin Powers - The Spy Who Shagged Me - PG-13 | January 21, 2007 | N/A | ||||
| The Illusionist - PG-13 | January 21, 2007 | N/A | ||||
| The Importance of Being Earnest - PG |
I've adored The Importance of Being Earnest since I saw it at the theater when I was in college, so when I saw it had been made into a movie in 2002, I added it to my Netflix queue. This version of the story stars Rupert Everett, Colin Firth, Frances O'Connor and Reese Witherspoon as the four main characters. The basic story is that Jack Worthing (Colin Firth) has been telling everyone at his country estate that he is going to London to see his unfortunate brother, Ernest. While in London, he's been using the name Ernest. The woman he loves, Gwendolen (Frances O'Connor) has said she could only love a man named Ernest and so the charade continues. Poor Jack is trying to find a way to really take on that name, even going so far as to inquire about being baptized as such. One person knows the truth, Algernon (Rupert Everett) and he goes out to the country estate, introducing himself as Jack's brother, Ernest. There he meets Jack's ward, Cecily (Reese Witherspoon) who has been enamored of Ernest from the stories she's heard. She's even kept a diary of fictitious events between the two of them, including an engagement. Algy is smitten and proposes. So two men, both claiming to be Ernest, engaged to women who don't know their real names. Then Gwendolen arrives at the country estate and things quickly careen out of the men's control. My sum up of the plot probably leaves a lot to be desired, but it's complicated to explain, though it's not nearly as complicated to follow on screen. For a better summary, you might want to check out Wikipedia. I enjoyed this movie a lot once I stopped comparing it to the theatrical version I'd seen. While there are many things that can be done on film that can't be accomplished in the theater, theater also has advantages. For one thing, there's more immediacy to it. And another plus is that it's an audience experience. The story itself is clever. Oscar Wilde was a master at wittiness and he pokes fun at the societal mores of Victorian England in a way that's both entertaining and sharp. I thought the cast did a fine job with their characters, especially Dame Judi Dench who had a supporting role as Lady Bracknell. One thing I didn't like was all the little flashbacks they did to events that had happened in the past. The vignettes weren't more than a few seconds here or there, but I felt it detracted from the story as it was occurring. The other thing I didn't like was that they added bill collectors coming to the estate because of Ernest's bill at the Savoy. According to Wikipedia, that was a scene that Wilde had cut from the play before publication. As a writer, I'd shudder if someone did that to one of my stories. If I cut something, it's out for a reason. The last thing I'd want was some movie producer 100 years in the future finding the material and using it. Gah! Overall, though, they did a fine job with Wilde's play. I enjoyed myself immensely. My Rating: 4 Stars |
January 21, 2007 | N/A | |||
| Bridget Jones's Diary - R | January 18, 2007 | N/A | ||||
| Vanilla Sky - R | January 18, 2007 | N/A | ||||
| As Good As It Gets - PG-13 | January 18, 2007 | N/A | ||||
| Outbreak - R | January 18, 2007 | N/A | ||||
| Aliens - R | January 18, 2007 | N/A | ||||
| Apocalypse Now - R | January 18, 2007 | N/A | ||||
| Alien 3 - R | January 18, 2007 | N/A |
298 ratings
20 reviews
