.jeri.

When the Brea 5 re-opened its doors and was offering free movies, I recalled that the last movie I saw at that theater was Ghost World; I don't think at the time I knew that the theater would be closing. Nine years later, a wave of nostalgia washed over me when I walked into theater five and saw its chairs. While the lobby has gotten a makeover, the theaters are the same, and seeing the rows of chairs again brought back so many memories. My sister met her boyfriend (a theater employee) there, when he finally approached her after seeing her frequent the theater for years. We got to know several of the people who worked there, actually. I wonder where they all are now - have they found a direction in life? Most of them hadn't yet; we were all young and didn't know where we were headed then. I still remember when Ric came home from his semester in D.C., and he paged me, and I got the page while I was in the theater. I used the pay phone to call him back and accept his invite to hang out. We ended up hanging out for the rest of our lives.

The Brea 5 will always live on my heart as a foreign and independent movie theater and a place where I spent many of my formative movie-watching years, but now it's a slightly higher-end discount movie theater that features movies a month or so before they're released on DVD. For the opening week, the theater offered free admission to any movie. The only pick of the five that I hadn't seen was Percy Jackson. I had a mild interest in the movie because I like the young adult fantasy genre.

I had no idea who starred in Percy Jackson before I watched it. Sean Bean plays Zeus, Pierce Brosnan is Chiron, Steve Coogan is Hades, Rosario Dawson is Persephone, Kevin McKidd is Poseidon, and Uma Thurman is Medusa?! Why didn't I hear about this cast?

I forgot to mention that Catherine Keener was in the movie too. She offers the worst acting I've ever seen from her. What kind of casting agent thought she'd be good in this type of movie? She's so granola that she can't possibly fit in with a CGI world.

Keener plays the mother of Percy Jackson, a young kid who doesn't know he's a demigod (son of Poseidon). He thinks his father left his mom when he was young, but Poseidon was forced to leave his family. Now,hen Zeus thinks Poseidon's son stole his lightning rod, he threatens war on Earth.

The worst casting of the movie was for its star role, Logan Lerman, who admittedly isn't given much to work with, but can't quite handle the little he is given. To make matters worse, his sidekick is a satyr. The word satyr sounds cool, but a half-man half-goat isn't all that cool on the big screen. A lot of his satyr-who's-got-game antics are very painful to behold.

Well, Percy has a generic love interest with Annabeth, daughter of Athena. She joins him on his quest to rescue his mom, who has been kidnapped by Hades. Together with their goat friend, they have to collect pearls that will help them return from the underworld. They have to fight some mythical creatures to obtain them, save mom, and restore the lightning rod to Zeus, and all on a deadline.

Oddly enough, while watching the story unfold I could tell it was probably an entertaining book. It sounds like a creative way to introduce younger readers to the world of mythology and learn about its key players and their attributes. Percy is not unlike Perseus in his demigodhood and the places he visits are similar, but the visualization of this modern spin on mythology just doesn't work. The script is hokey, the actors aren't into it, and the special effects aren't very impressive.

I'm sure the idea of making this movie sounded like one with great potential, but the awe of the mythological world is missing here, and as a result, the whole thing feels pretty ho-hum.

Reading a book not long before watching a movie can set one up for major disappointment. I know this, yet I set myself up by doing exactly that because I quite liked the book. I thought it was a great young-adult spin on a Logan's Run/Planet of the Apes genre movie. In it, Saoirse Ronan stars as Lena, a girl who lives in the city of Ember. Ember is a bit like Dark City - no sun, all artificial lights, only it's a little less technologically advanced - no one knows how to make a mobile source of light (or capture fire); as such, no one can go into the darkness that surrounds the city. It's self-contained, and to its inhabitants, it is all there is. The people of the city also don't know must of their history, so they don't know that the city was made by builders for a specific purpose, and that the builders left special instructions that were supposed to be opened at a specific time. The instructions were supposed to be passed from mayor to mayor over the years, but got lost.

The city's power supply is failing, and everything's falling apart. Everyone is afraid of what will happen if the lights turn off permanently. Lena stumbles across a partial version of the builders' instructions, and she and her peer, Doon try to uncover what they mean - both hoping that this could be salvation for Ember.

I experienced this story as an audio book. As the narrator read, I was able to perfectly envision an image of Ember, Lena, Doon, and every place they went. That's unfortunate, because my vision of Ember was quite different than what it looked like in the movie. I really disliked the settings and costumes in this movie. I even hated the casting, especially Tim Robbins as Doon's father, which was a complete mistake, as was Marianne Jean-Baptiste as Clary. While we're at it, I'm not so sure Bill Murray was the right person for the role of the obese, corrupt mayor either, nor was Harry Treadaway as Doon (who looks a little too emo to fit in to his environment, so maybe it's more of a styling issue).

But beyond all this, the failure of the movie is that it completely misses the heart of the book. It's like the script was written as a series of snapshots of the book's most interesting parts, but so many of those interesting parts were too hard to film, so they were changed for the worse. It seemed like more effort was spent making Lena's grandma's kooky house and Doon's father's gadgets, which are quite secondary to the central plot. The movie was short, too, and unnecessarily so. There were plenty of places where scenes could have been extended to build character and theme, but character was unimportant, and themes were nonexistent.

I was so disappointed in this movie, but am so glad I caught the book. It explores a lot of ideas in a very simplistic way, and I'm all about it being a sort of introductory sci-fi story for the kids. I'd write more if I had more time, but that's basically it, and I've got to get back to work.

Another night with the Agadonis brought another movie I've been meaning to see but never seen, even though people have been telling me to see it for a long time. I'm sorry, but I have a Netflix queue that's roughly 400 movies long, so when people tell me to watch something, I can probably only tell them I'll see it within the next five years - if I'm lucky. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (the punctuation-free title makes me wince) was ages away from being seen, so I'm glad Amy chose it as her pick for the evening.

The movie stars Robert Downey Jr. as a thief named Harry who accidentally ends up at a movie audition and gets invited to a party, where he meets Perry. Perry (Val Kilmer, in possibly his best role ever) asks Harry to join him in an investigation, which will help Harry get into character more. Another person Harry meets at the party is Harmony, who turns out to be a childhood friend. Between Perry's investigation and Harmony's past, Harry's quest for a better life is derailed and the three end up entangled in a puzzle filled with dead bodies (sometimes recurring ones).

I love how the movie turns into a noirish jumble of mistaken identity and murder mystery in a present-day setting. It moves a little more quickly than typical noir, but the introspection on Harry's part is what gives the movie its depth. Every once in a while, I felt like the story-telling methods were a little bit overdone. There were fun gimmicks, but they weren't necessary ones, and they didn't always fit in with the overall feel of the movie.

This is the first time I've been impressed with Michelle Monaghan. I know a lot of people liked her in Gone Baby Gone (wow, she likes her movie titles sans punctuation, doesn't she?!), but I never felt like she was given much of a chance to shine because her character was underdeveloped. After watching this movie, I can't help but wonder why I haven't seen a lot of her. At the risk of getting too Mary, I have to say that I think the lighter color of hair makes her stand out much more. She's so vivid here, and it's no wonder that Downey's character is head-over-heels for her. As always, Downey's a charmer and plays well off of Monaghan and Kilmer, although I have to admit that he comes across as RDJ more than Harry to me, because I've seen him do the charming, chatty routine a few times.

At any rate, I can see this being a movie that I would stop to watch whenever it's on TV. It's got such a good balance of humor and darker material, the players are all perfectly cast, and it was fun to see a modern spin on noir that worked.

Hi everyone,

The past week has been one of changes!

First off, we got new neighbors! A couple weeks ago, Ryan and Amy closed escrow on a condo in our complex. Yes! They now live four doors down across the way. We helped them paint in their new place last weekend:

This weekend, we helped them move in. It was a hot day and we all got tired, but we finished early, and it was great. I like having people I actually know in my complex, especially when one of them is a best friend.

Second, I got a new job! No, I wasn't applying for anything outside; we had an office re-org. Previously I worked with the registrar-side of things for our university's degree completion program. The program is closing, and our office wants to keep the two of us who work with it, so they decided to start shifting things around so that no one will wonder why we have two people dedicated to helping only 300 students out of 6000. I have moved under a new manager and into a newly-created position. I'll continue working with the software we've converted to for our student administration, as well as managing our office website, social networking, communication between departments, reporting, and learning and supporting the office's various softwares and the special projects related to them.

It's a big departure from what I was doing in the past (which was overseeing registration, grades, probation, etc.). I've spent over ten years working with registration, so it's definitely weird to leave it behind. I will definitely miss it. I'm also going to miss working with and sitting next to D, my partner in crime, and having frequent chats with K, my movie and WordTwist buddy. We'll still be around each other, but probably won't be sitting as close to each other when some office Musical Chairs takes place.

I am excited about the prospect in the sense that it's nice to be recognized for my aptitude, but I am nervous as well. It's a less structured job. It will be harder to measure my progress/achievements on a day-to-day basis, as well as stay focused, since I'm more of a task-oriented person. It's also daunting to think of how much I have to learn, and I'm nervous about my ability to keep up as well as become an expert on so many softwares. I'll probably have to start learning some new coding languages too. It's going to be a challenge. As I told some friends already, I think I'm being placed in a job because I am good at certain things, which makes sense, but only time will tell if I actually like having a job doing those things.

So this week, along with an already busy week, I'll be teaching D the ropes of what I've been doing for the past six years. When you think of it, I could definitely use a little bit of prayer.

Also up this week are some changes in office decor! I'm heading up a group of people who are decorating the office for a university-wide department spirit competition for Opening Day on Friday. Seeing as we started planning about two weeks ago, it'll be rushed, but hopefully our ideas will come out well. I'll definitely post photos on Facebook. If you're not on Facebook, then you're missing out on all of my lovely photos, which I post all the time!

May you all have a great week! I'm off to get a little exercise before hitting the stores in search of groceries and decorating supplies!

I live in a condo with a very compact kitchen and am always trying to find ways to save space. I had a double-tiered Lazy Susan in my pantry that was crammed full of spices. It was taking up precious pantry space, as well as getting so packed that it was always hard to find the spice I was looking for because sometimes what I needed was sitting behind another bottle; I started buying duplicate spices because I thought I didn't have an item. The more I played around with cooking, the more spices I bought, and the more spices I bought, the less room my pantry had. It was a mess.

After searching online for ideas, I kept seeing magnetic spice racks. Unfortunately, most of them were sheets of metal and only held up to around 16-20 spices, and most of them couldn't be used very flexibly. Related to that, another idea was to buy watchmaker tins and put magnets on them, then affix them to my fridge. But from what I read, the tins aren't very airtight, and the warmth of the fridge might affect the spices. So what now?

Well, I have small, long cabinets that hang above my sink. I thought it would be great if I could somehow have a long row of spices that stretched the same length. I considered building a small shelf that just extended beneath the cabinets, but going out to buy supplies and making it permanent with a professional look was a little daunting. I found out that there's such a thing as magnetic primer, and thought maybe I could coat the underside of the cabinet, but found out the primer can really only support light items (like pieces of paper).

All this time I wanted something cheap, but really, my ideas were too grand for cheap. Once I realized this, I finally gave in to my gut instinct: magnetic knife racks. I popped over to Ikea, got a few slim racks that cost about $8-9 a piece, and had the husb attach them to the cabinet. He had to trim one of the racks (I think he actually used--and possibly destroyed--a handsaw). But they were up there!

As for the jars, well, I had to hunt for jars with lids that I knew would be magnetic. Most jars with metal lids should work. For me, since I already had one spice rack with magnetic jars, I just caved in and bought the rack again (after a failed call to the manufacturer to inquire about buying replacement jars), and gave away the extra spices to some friends.

It took a while for me to transfer all of my spices from my variety of bottles to the jars, and then I labeled them all using clear labels in the handy-dandy label-maker (every home should have one).

Once I popped all those jars up there and saw the colors and how streamlined it looked, I was giddy. It makes me happy every time I look at it. I have room in my pantry again, the spice rack looks great, and man, it makes cooking so convenient too!

Additional thoughts, added post-post:
I have to say that my initial reason for doing this was to save space, but the function aspect has been a huge bonus. When I'm cooking or baking, it's awesome to have everything accessible at an arm's length. I even have baking soda and powder on the rack. Plus, there's the great satisfaction of popping the jar off and on the rack!

I think I may add one non-conformist jar to the mix, since it's used more often: vanilla. I do have to store a few excess spices/powders in a cabinet, but they take up very little space and only need to be accessed at refill time. My one regret with the whole project is that I wish the space above my sink were even longer, because I have a few more spices I'd like to add to the lineup! For now, I plan to put the least-used spices (who needs saffron on a regular basis?) in a cabinet. Right now, that's only about 4-5 bottles, which is something I can deal with. :)

I'm pretty sure I was going to say everything word-for-word as Nobody said it in his review (which he has yet to post online), but now that he's said it all, I can take a pass, right?

He did notice some things I did, such as the comparison of Leo in Shutter Island and this movie. It's interesting to me that he chose to do both of these movies so closely together, since it's hard to avoid comparison.

The one thing I feel like an idiot for not noticing was the director's role as architect and that the cut at the end is a potential inception of the audience's interpretation of the film.

For me, an interpretation of the ending wasn't necessary because the movie seemed quite straightforward, and I haven't really entertained any discussions about it, although it's been funny listening to them go on on the other side of my cubicle wall.

Overall, I was pleased with this movie. I've been waiting for a summer blockbuster that looks good, contains some exciting action, and uses its brain a bit. Inception accomplished all three. That the movie was released to mainstream audiences almost seems a shame, since I have a feeling it could have been given more depth if it had been made for an indie audience. And it did lack a character with which one could empathize, despite the emotional dynamics between Mal and Cobb. Despite those couple of points, I found it interesting and entertaining, and just drank in the sets and effects. Joseph Gordon Levitt didn't look too shabby either (awesome suit).

On a related and final note, I'm quite proud of JGL and LDC for both making it through childhood as actors on TV sitcoms (Roseanne and Growing Pains) and turning out to be smart young men who choose interesting projects.

Gary Oldman holds a lot of sway for me. He's one of my favorite actors, and as such, I have put up with a lot of bad movies just to see whatever brilliance he might perform. He has been a thickly-accented villain in a futuristic world, Lee Harvey Oswald, Dracula, Lieutenant Gordon, a white guy who wants to be black, a Russian hijacker on Air Force One, a two-faced cop, and Beethoven. (On a side-note, I found this handy-dandy list on Amazon that features the many accents of Gary Oldman, should you ever want to experience more of them.) Not all of his movies are great, but his presence usually yields more credibility to a movie for me. Stick with me here; there is a point.

Denzel Washington also holds a lot of sway for me. I try to sway away (yes!) from his movies. I know he has won an Oscar and has been nominated for others, but there's something so slimy about him. Doesn't anyone else see it? He comes across as so arrogant and self-righteous, or at least he seems to be attracted to roles that accentuate that quality in him. And if he's not self-righteous, he's more of a martyr, which makes him annoyingly righteous. At any rate, in most of his movies, I don't see the character - I see Denzel. One day, when Ric and I heard the song, "Don't Bogart That Joint" and decided it wasn't fair that such negative connotations would be attached to such a great actor when there are actors like Denzel around. So we adopted a habit of substituting his name for Bogart's. Example: "Don't Denzel the peanut butter M&Ms; I'd like to eat some of them too."

Anyway, when presented with the dilemma of a movie that starred both Gary Oldman and Denzel Washington, Ric and I both screamed (I love him for sharing my sentiments). We put off the movie for the cheap theater. Once it got there, we put it off even more. Apparently, out dislike of Denzel was stronger than our love of Oldman - who knew? But eventually, an evening with friends made the decision for me, and I quietly acquiesced when The Book of Eli was the chosen entertainment (and I love my friends for apologizing to me).

All that to eventually say that this is possibly the best Denzel movie out there. Thankfully, he walks around by himself a lot, so he hardly has any lines at all. He is, dare I say, subtle. I didn't think he had it in him.

His character is traveling in a post-apocalyptic world down a road. Before you say that this sounds too much like The Road, his precious cargo is not his son - it's a book with the power to save mankind, and apparently it's the only one left in existence. He's on a mission to reach a place where he can pass it on so that it is preserved, and Gary Oldman's character wants to steal it from him because he recognizes its power and wants it for himself. Together with a young girl, he battles against those who would steal the book from him and continues down the road toward his final destination.

I like the idea behind this movie a lot. As I've heard said, it's sort of like a Pilgrim's Progress. There's a straight path, and every time you leave the path, you are faced with danger, temptation, and death. There are a lot of parallels and insights one can draw to the plot, but unfortunately, the way the movie plays out feels a bit too familiar to me. I've already seen The Road, I am Legend, 28 Days (and Weeks) Later, and many other worlds like this, so I was hoping for a fresher take on a post-apocalyptic world.

As for the final scenes, I'm not sure if I was supposed to be surprised by them; I wasn't. That's not necessarily bad. I actually liked the closing scenes and concepts for the most part. I think I was expecting a more climactic resolution based on what other people told me about the movie. But that's okay. It's like taking a nap after a long journey - it's not very exciting, but it feels right.

While some reviews claimed that Oldman overplayed his role, I'm not sure I agree. Have they seen The Fifth Element or True Romance? Hahaha. Well, at any rate, I thought he was very even in his role. His character, Carnegie, wanted the book for evil, but revered the book for its good powers. The respect for what he sought was a nice touch to his character and made him a little less one-dimensional.

Overall, I was surprised to find the movie wasn't just a loud action flick, and that's a good thing. It didn't break out in any new areas ('though I think it had the potential to do so), but was solid enough, and I think I could potentially appreciate it more with repeat viewings. So there. Is that a surprising review from a Denzel hater?

Hey everyone,

I only have a few minutes to post, so I thought I'd just write a few updates about live in general.

I've been keeping busy having fun with my summer. Every short Friday, I'm out there exploring the area in which I live. There are so many places to see. I'm already making plans for next year, since there were some things I wasn't able to get to this summer. Today I'm heading out with a couple girls from work to go to the Natural History Museum. I'm a little bummed the dinosaurs won't be on display since they're updating the exhibit, but it should be fun. Last Friday I spent eight hours at the OC Fair. It was so fun. I was on my own for most of the time, and I just walked along gradually and saw whatever I could see. From butter sculptures to racing pigs to Michael Jackson macaroni art, it was full of exciting and interesting things. I loved it.

My health is doing better these days. I've been taking medication to try and help what appears to be a slight insulin resistance. It's been making my more normal again. I don't know if that's what did it, but all of a sudden, my exercise seems to be working, and I'm starting to lose weight more rapidly. I am happy to say that I reached my pre-surgery weight, and I'm going down from there. Clothes are starting to be less tight, and some of them are even too loose. That's a great feeling. Hopefully I'll be able to keep it up! It's all God. Every time I'm out there jogging, I think, "Can I do this?" and then remember it's really "we". He's got complete control of my health, and he's been allowing me to jog more and more.

Oh, well, I was going to start writing more about my summer, but time's already up. Let's just say I've watched a lot of Dr. Who and Torchwood this summer, and am enjoying the ride.

I hope all of you are well and happy. Lates.

Hot off the tails of watching The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo, I accompanied my sister to see its sequel in the theater. It was packed. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what it is about these stories that attract the reader/viewer so much. To my dismay, there was a boy of about 12 in the audience. I really hope they got him out of there before he saw the gratuitous female sex scene. That's right, just like the first in the series, this one takes things farther than they need to go for no real reason. I'm not the only person who found it distasteful; the entire audience seemed to squirm and groan during it.

In this movie, the story picks up not too long after the first. Lisbeth has disappeared from her world for a little while and returns just in time to be proclaimed the prime suspect in the murder of her corrupt parole sponsor. Her case is linked with a sex trafficking ring that Blomkvist's fellow journalists have been investigating. Again, Lisbeth and Blomkvist each work most of the time on their own to try and track down the bad guys, and eventually they join forces.

Thankfully, this movie delves more into the psych of Lisbeth, so we actually have an idea of who she is and why she is the way she is. The first movie hinted at it, but here we learn about her traumatized childhood and understand why she's a parolee. We learn slightly more about Blomkvist, but really, it's all about Lisbeth, and he's mostly around to be someone with whom the audience can relate.

Honestly, since I watched the two movies so closely together, both plots are a bit muddled for me. There is a big boxer who can't feel pain (which made me think about Homer Simpson); he's the giant who must be felled by the end of the movie. Half of me thought he was cool and the other thought I'd seen a similar character in several other movies.

I can't say that I didn't like this movie, but I can't say that I liked it either. For me, it was kind of a neutral experience of watching an investigative thriller, somewhat like something I'd watch on TV. Even though it kept my interest, I still feel like the details of Lisbeth's emotional journey and the people she interacts with all feel forced (or stale), and the gratuitous material still feels entirely pointless. At this rate, I may see the third movie just to find out if this trilogy has some sort of payoff, but I'm certainly not waiting with baited breath for the next installment.

Honestly, I probably wouldn't have seen any of the "Girl.." movies if it weren't for the fact that my sister read them and wanted to see the movies. She saw the first without me but wanted to go see the second, so I gave it a shot. After all, it was available on the Roku, and this is the summer of Roku.

On a Roku-related side note, have I mentioned that I'm on season three of Dr. Who now? Actual DVD rental is starting to feel primitive. Ric and I watched the first two seasons of Dexter on Roku. For season three, we have to watch a few episodes and then return the disc and wait for it in the mail. It's only a couple of days, but it's amazing what instant streaming can do to a person's patience levels.

Okay! That side note is kind of an indicator of how easily I could get distracted from talking about this movie. Honestly, I'm not sure why these stories seem to be so popular. While there is an interesting investigative thriller aspect to TGWTDT, I feel like the rest of the movie gets bogged down with unnecessary overemphasis of gritty subject matter. Now, I'm not a wimp when it comes to the movies. I can watch just about anything. I could even watch this movie, but being able to sit through it doesn't mean I can't recognize when certain aspects of it could have been edited, left out, or more subtle.

The film's heroine is named Lisbeth. She has a tattoo of a dragon on her back, which really isn't a part of the story. She's a parolee, and when her parole supervisor has some health problems, she gets a new supervisor. This one is pretty cruel and perverse. At their first meeting, he takes control of her finances and basically indicates that he's willing to trade favors with her once in a while so that she can get the things she needs. Lisbeth does some security work for a company, and uses a hidden camera the next time she meets with him; little does she know that he wants more than just small favors.

Meanwhile, a man named Michael Blomkvist is an investigative reporter who is asked to investigate what happened to a girl who went missing 40 years ago. Because he had recently gone under trial for suspicion of creating false resources in an important piece he published, Blomkvist's new employer had Blomkvist investigated by Lisbeth before approaching him for help. Lisbeth hacked into Blomkvist's computer for her investigation, and even though her job is done, she continues hacking in and keeps track of the progress he's making on his case. Soon, she decides to help him.

Blomkvist's case ends up being full of family secrets that all tie in to Lisbeth's own recent experiences. To say that there are dark themes is an understatement. What I really didn't like was the way the filmmakers approached the rape subject material. There are many ways to imply a person has been raped, and many ways to film such scenes. Perhaps the goal was to show the audience the horror so that they would feel sympathy for the heroine. Audiences are capable of feeling sympathy without needing to see every detail. In this case, I feel like the scenes were just gratuitous. It was all a bit tasteless, and for no real reason. On top of that, the rape themes seem to be everywhere, and every woman in the movie seems to be a victim. It's just dark, dirty, and tiresome.

The investigation is what kept me attentive, and it's what kept me conscious of the fact that there was a lot of potential for the story that didn't come to fruition for me. The interaction between Blomkvist and Lisbeth is great, even when they don't know all that much about each other. I really liked the part of the movie when they use old photographs of a parade to figure out the identity of who was going after the missing girl. I also quite liked Michael Nyqvist as an actor.

While I didn't hate the movie, I just felt like it wallowed around in the dirt a lot for no real reason. I get that it's all about men who hate women, but part of the problem comes from how Lisbeth can appear to come down to the same level as the men who treated her poorly. We don't hear much about what's going on inside of her, because she doesn't talk much, even to Blomkvist. The whole thing feels detached and rests on fuzzy moral ground. I know that Blomkvist is supposed to be the audience's moral compass, but when Lisbeth connects with him, it makes it hard not to expect the same of her. Perhaps the book was able to tie in the themes and feel less muddled, but I was disappointed with this one.

When I first read (or listened) to the tales of Robin Hood by Howard Pyle, I felt excited about something I read for the first time in a long time. Maybe the timing was right - it wasn't long after a trip to the British Isles and I was enjoying a lot of Celtic folk music. At any rate, I fell in love with the stories and they became instant favorites. I sought out the Errol Flynn movie as well. For me, Robin Hood was young, lively, happy, full of song, full of jests, and up for adventure. When I saw the trailers for Ridley Scott's movie, I knew I would hate it, but also knew that I needed to see it so that I could tell everyone why it was so bad. So I waited patiently for the movie to fall to the cheap theater (obviously I wouldn't pay full price to see it).

In cases like this, I'm happy when I'm wrong.

What? Did I just say that? I can't believe it. I actually liked this movie. First off, let me just say that it didn't take long (opening credits) for me to realize that this would be nothing like the Robin Hood I love. Once I accepted that, I just let myself watch this movie like any kind of period action-drama; it just happened to have a bunch of characters with the same names as the ones in folklore. On that level, I think it works, and I even liked it better than Gladiator (although if you've heard me talk about Gladiator, I know that's not the biggest endorsement).

In this story, Robin Longstride is in King Richard's army, which is headed home after war. The king dies, and Robert Loxley is entrusted with the king's crown, which is to be taken back to England to be given to Prince John. On his way, Loxley is intercepted by Godfrey's men, who are intercepted by Robin's men. Robin ends up with the crown and the dying Loxley's father's sword, and promises to return both to their rightful owners. After delivering the crown, he goes to Loxley's home town and assumes Loxley's life temporarily, in order to help his widow, Marion, from losing her property (or something like that). Pretty soon an uprising is starting up against Prince John and there's danger of a French invasion, and it's up to Robin and his men to save the day.

I'm not even going to research the history behind any of this. I'll just say that as a story, I thought the dynamics of royalty and power were set up well. It actually surprised me how much focus was put on this part of the story. I really expected more fluff for a summer blockbuster, but the movie was unexpectedly subdued. The trailers led me to believe it would be all action, but I was very happy to find that the events in Loxley's small town, the interest between Robin and Marion, and the story of Robin's own identity all unfolded quietly. That was completely unexpected.

I think because of my skepticism, I didn't even bother paying attention to the cast of Robin Hood until I saw the movie; it's rather impressive. Of note is Max von Sydow as Loxley's elderly father, who is so noble that he will attempt a sword fight even though he's blind. The cheering presence of Mark Addy, Kevin Durand, Scott Grimes, and Alan Doyle as the merry men was a welcome one. Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett balance their roles well, and other good performances by the likes of Wiliam Hurt (Wililam Marshal) and Eileen Atkins (Eleanor of Aquitaine) balance out some of the slightly over-acted parts by Mark Strong and Oscar Isaac as Godfrey and Prince John.

The script isn't without its flaws. Ridley Scott is prone to repetition of lines or images to create an emotional impact, and for me this repetition feels a bit like a club to the head. But again, I was really surprised at how this movie wasn't all about flare. The story moves along well, the action is distributed evenly and at appropriate times, and there were really only a couple of gimmicks that made me groan.

Despite being in a theater full of talkers, I actually found this to be a pleasant movie-going experience. I may need to see it again to see if my positive response is simply due to low expectations, but for now I'll stand by this movie and say that for what it is, I actually thought it was pretty good.

Thanks to a few movie-loving pals, I was exposed to a few scenes of Black Dynamite. From what I saw, I knew this was a movie I needed to see with my husband. Thanks to the wonders of Roku, I had him watching it soon and he laughed heartily.

I haven't actually seen any blacksploitation movies, but this is a parody of them, and it stars Michael Jai White as Black Dynamite. Black Dynamite is a Vietnam veteran, Kung-Fu master, helicopter pilot, and more. He can do pretty much everything, has loads of cool catchphrases, and the ladies can't resist him.

Unfortunately, Black Dynamite's brother is killed, there's a problem with heroin at the local orphanages, and the ghetto's popular malt liquor poses a threat to everyone. Black Dynamite declares war on anyone involved and will fight to the top to help the victims.

The movie isn't hilarious all of the time, but it really does have a lot of laughs. There are plenty of one-liners that Ric and I say to each other now, besides singing the catchy, "Dynamite, dynamite!" theme (although mine usually sounds like, "Pip-oh-mite!" since I turn all song lyrics into little ditties about the kit). My favorite scenes usually have to do with cheesy witticisms, out-of-the blue humor, or funny uses of seemingly useless knowledge. The scene where Black Dynamite's crew figure out what's going on with Anaconda Malt Liquor (beware of language - here's the link) was too much!

Anyway, of course, I have to give a disclaimer regarding language, violence, and nudity, but I'm pretty sure that's a given if you're seeing this movie. Parodies aren't usually my thing, but in this case, it works. The humor isn't about ridiculous slapstick or over-exaggerated acting. It takes what was funny about blacksploitation movies and replicates those things.. and then throws all of them into one movie.

I can see Ric watching this movie repeatedly. I thought it was funny and probably wouldn't mind seeing it now and again either.

The summer of Roku strikes again with La Belle et la Bete, from director Jean Cocteau. You know the story of Beauty and the Beast, but it has a completely different feel in this live-action black and white French film. Here, Belle is played by Josette Day and the beast is Jean Marais.

The magic begins as soon as Belle's father comes across the beast's home. In side, all objects always move as required, moved by the beast's magic. When Belle's father wanders through the entrance, the candelabra that line the hallway are held by human-like arms that move in his direction. The effect is mysterious, creepy, magical, and wonderful. This scene alone sets the tone for what is to come.

The elements of the story are familiar, but in the hands of Cocteau, it's a rich treat for the audience's eyes. Belle comes to live with the beast to save her father's life. When she arrives, she has her own room, her mirror who shows her her home, and all the finest clothing and jewelry she could desire. The sets and costumes are as intricate as one might imagine in a fairytale. The costume of the beast himself is really amazing. Maybe it's the black and white blurring my critical eye, but I really felt like he felt realistic. There are even some closeups in which one can really feel the emotional pain Beast is experiencing through his eyes and the mask.

The way the story plays out, the sincerity of the lead actors, the imagination put into the design, the great shots, and well-suited music all work together for a movie that really is a masterpiece. I am so glad I caught up with this one.

Sorry this is short. It's short Friday and I'm headed out to the beach for some reading and relaxation!

I'm not usually a huge fan of Barbara Stanwyck's, but this movie kept coming up in lists of classics, so I decided to ignore her as best as I could while still following the plot. Okay, maybe I just watched the movie anyway. It's a romantic comedy that starts out on a ship. Stanwyck plays Jean, who makes a living with her father (Charles Coburn) as a con artist. They spot Charles (Henry Fonda), who belongs to a rich brewing family and decide to con him. The father goes after money in poker games. The daughter goes after the whole fortune by pursuing Charles as a love interest.

Charles must strike Jean as an honest and good guy, because she instantly falls for him, which complicates the con job. She really wants to marry Hopsie (her nickname for Charles), but when he finds out who she really is, he dumps her. From this point on, Jean sets out to enter Charles' home life as Eve - a lady who happens to look just like Jean. Will Eve fall in love with Charles too, or break his heart?

The movie plays out rather undramatically but has a good amount of charm, thanks to actors like Henry Fonda, Charles Coburn, and my favorite supporting actors, Williaim Demarest and Eric Blore. Fonda uses a good amount of natural physical comedy, and his honest response to everything he encounters is what gives the movie its heart. I never quite bought the love story, but I bought Hopsie.

I'm not sure this is a movie I would watch repeatedly, but it was a pleasant hour and a half.

Tilda Swinton is one of those odd birds whose appearance isn't exactly chameleon-like, but her acting is. In I Am Love, she plays a Russian woman who lives in Italy and (according to reviews) pronounces her Italian with a Russian accent. Her character, Emma, has married into an affluent Italian textiles family. Her time seems to be spent taking an interest in the lives of her grown children and husband and coordinating the events of her household with the help of her faithful maid. Once the events are in full swing, she retreats to a quiet room upstairs.

The film is filled with acute attention to the lavish fineries of her household. Most of these fineries clashed with my own personal tastes, so I suppose where I should have admired these things, I was thinking, "Wait - what era is this? Why would someone decorate their house that way nowadays?" Yes, I do admit that sometimes details like this keep me from focusing on deeper meanings within films. But, just as the family's tastes are far from subtle, so are the movie's themes.

Emma has married into this family but seems like a visitor among them. Actually, the decor itself represents her detachment from her own home, because later on we discover her love of a simpler life. In fact, almost nothing of her life seems to reflect who she is or what she is about; even her name was given to her by her husband when she came from Russia to Italy.

Emma's son Edoardo befriends a chef named Antonio and wants to open a restaurant with him. Emma has lunch at Antonio's restaurant to sample his food. To say she loves it is an understatement, because the scene was, um, climactic in nature, and serves as a fork in the road for Emma, who chooses to awaken from her coma.

For a long while, I was on board with I Am Love, ready to go where it took me. But Emma's fork in the road served as one for me too. Stylistically, I couldn't just roll with the somewhat frenetic injections of handheld camera work and closeups - particularly in the countryside scenes. Perhaps they are reflective of Emma's own heart, but I felt like there were so many styles going on that it all felt a bit pretentious, especially when combined with the highly dramatic score (which was great on its own).

Related to this second act, I am still trying to get my head around Antonio's connection with Emma. Certainly, anyone with any amount of passion could have encountered Emma at the right moment and probably sprung her from her self-imposed cell, but what's in it for Antonio, really, besides a great recipe for ukha?

When all is said and done, there is much I appreciate about I Am Love, but it's just so full of style that I felt like it flooded, and as soon as I had a second to appreciate its dramatic stop, I wanted to get away from the theater. I saw it on the same day as Winter's Bone, so I'm sure the contrast affected my opinion, but I am pretty sure that if I had seen both films a week apart, I would probably still be recommending Winter's Bone to everyone.

As Winter's Bone begins, we see Ree Dolly waking her brother and sister up, making them breakfast. At first one might wonder if she's a very young single mom, but soon it's revealed that she cares for her catatonic mother as well. The four live in a rickety old home the Ozarks, and Ree has dreams of joining the military so that she can earn a lot of money to provide for her family. Unfortunately, an officer shows up at her door to inform the family that her missing father has a court hearing coming up, and if he doesn't show, they will lose their house because he put it up to raise his bail money. Not knowing how else she can help her family, Ree goes looking for her father; but the more she looks, the more warnings she receives that she's treading into dangerous territory by trying to find out why he has disappeared.

Jennifer Lawrence stars as Ree, and I love the way she portrays the character. Ree is strong because she has to be. She keeps following leads and doesn't let others intimidate her - even her uncle (played strikingly by John Hawkes), who obviously knows more than he is willing to reveal. Ree keeps walking, keeps asking, and keeps trying to find some sort of support from blood relatives.

What I appreciate about Winter's Bone is how it moves along at a steady pace without resorting to dramatics to keep the audience interested. The setting alone is an environment that one doesn't see often in movies. It's not exaggerated; it just is what it is. The same can be said of all of the characters. In a way, one could say that the drug dealers of Ree's town have a set up like any we've seen in bigger, flashier movies. There's obviously a man in charge, and it's hard to get an audience with him. He has his own bodyguards, and he has his own lackeys who do his business for him. But this is no Godfather or Scarface, and although those movies involve much larger scale drug deals, that doesn't make those of Ree's town seem any less powerful. The danger level is the same - these people are deadly.

I feel like this review already says too much, although there are so many things I liked about the movie. Some people have compared it to Frozen River; let me just say that although the general premise is of a female searching for a missing male in order to save her house, the similarities end there, and Winter's Bone has a much better script. At any rate, I felt like this movie moved at just the right pace, had just the right tone, and really had me going as it reached its end. It's definitely a highlight for 2010 and will probably show up in my top ten, depending on what comes out in the fall.

Ryan resurrected talk about how many of IMDb's top 250 each of us has seen, which made me feel competitive, so I instantly got onto the Roku and searched for movies on the list that I still haven't seen. Laura was one of them. It stars Dana Andrews as Detective Lieutenant Mark McPherson, who is investigating the death of a girl named Laura Hunt. As he interrogates the suspects in the case, he learns all about Laura's personality and her story.

A portrait of Laura hangs above the fireplace in Laura's apartment, which McPherson makes his headquarters for the investigation. He seems to want to be a part of Laura as much as everyone else in her life, such as Waldo Lydecker and Shelby Carptenter. Lydecker (Clifton Webb) is much older than Laura, but helped kick-start her career in advertising, and seems to think that she owes him the rest of her life; I'm not so sure he is in love with Laura, but he's definitely used to having her to himself at any rate. Lydeckers isn't very fond of the idea that Laura had recently become engaged to Shelby Carpenter (a young and pleasant Vincent Price). Carpenter is a bit of a playboy, and behaves a bit oddly when questioned by McPherson.

There is a certain point in the plot that I won't reveal for anyone who plans on seeing it. Once that point is reached, the movie makes a big shift and all the pieces that were nicely laid out in the beginning start to make their moves.

While I did enjoy the movie, I'd have to say that it feels a little more like noir-light from what I understand of the genre. The mystery isn't as complex, the magnetism of Laura isn't as tangible as it should be, and the love story feels more convenient than convincing. However, that's not to say I didn't enjoy the movie. Clifton Webb as Lydecker alone makes it worthwhile. It's a good cast overall, and the final scenes are compelling. I'm not sure I'd place it in my personal top 250, but it's still a classic and worth the watch.

Date Night is one of the worst movies I've seen in a few years. Don't see it. Any funny jokes appear in the trailers. The rest of the movie seems like something written by a woman in her 50s intended for a movie starring Diane Keaton and Steve Martin. You know what I mean.

Steve Carell and Tina Fey can both be hilarious people but they can only do so much with what they're given in this movie. I started out chuckling a tiny bit at some of the early jokes, most of which were witticisms rather than situational comedy. But as soon as their characters, The Fosters, are confused with the people whose restaurant reservation they stole, it's all downhill.

It only took about twenty minutes for me to turn and apologize to Ric for asking him to go see the movie with me--and we only paid $2 each for our tickets. I do admit that some of Mark Whalberg's scenes were funny, but even the "put on a shirt" jokes got old quickly. I think that was another big flaw of the movie, which tried to repeat jokes or themes often that weren't all that clever in the first place.

I hate, hate, hated this movie. Sorry Tina Fey, Liz Lemon is still my hero!

I like my Roku because Ric actually gets excited about watching movies. Most of the time he's off playing Guild Wars with his buddies while I watch my own TV or movies. But the Roku has really gotten into movies lately (oddly enough, he has a thing documentaries), and we've been watching more things together. Serpico was another one we'd always wanted to watch, mostly because of the references in Rushmore.

Just a few minutes into Serpico (after the dramatic beginning), my first comment was that it felt like watching Rocky. It has that subdued 70s style. The characters feel natural and the shots feel less glossy and more city-centric. I looked up both movies the next day and discovered that John Avildsen, the director of Rocky, was actually originally slated to direct Serpico, although it ended up helmed by Sidney Lumet. So there's a little bit of trivia for you.

Al Pacino gives a great performance in this movie as an odd, honest cop. He wears plainclothes yet does everything by the book. As his career progresses, cops are put off by both his appearance and the fact that he doesn't take his share of the cut they all receive from bribes. In fact, Serpico gradually learns how far up the bribery and corruption goes and collects evidence to blow the whistle on what's happing around him.

The story plods along quietly as evidence builds, Serpico grows more obsessed, and we see the repercussions build in both his personal and professional lives. Except for his integrity, there's no real reason to admire Serpico, so I had a little bit of a hard time relating to him, but I guess a noble cause can wipe out a lot of faults.

I don't always know what to say about movies like this. It's so subdued that it doesn't get you excited one way or another about where it's headed. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with it - in fact, it's really good - but it didn't leave very much of an impression. I guess that makes this an ambivalently positive review.

Ryan chose Ruggles of Red Gap as his pick for movie night a month ago. As the story unfolded, I realized I had seen a very loose adaptation of this story several times when I was a kid. It was called Fancy Pants, starring Bob Hope and Lucille Ball. That version takes the entire situation to the extreme, while this one stays subtle and grounded.

It stars Charles Laughton as Ruggles, a British valet whose boss (Roland Young) loses him in a poker game to an uncouth American who takes Ruggles back to his hometown of Red Gap in Washington, 1908. There, Ruggles' new boss introduces him jokingly as Colonel Ruggles, and the townspeople mistake him for an important person rather than a valet. Ruggles struggles (yes!) to let go of protocol, but as he gets a taste of being treated like an individual instead of a tool, his funny personality starts to emerge.

Laughton as Ruggles, Young as his former employer, and Charles Ruggles as his new employer are a trio worth watching. Laughton relies on quiet facial expressions and random surprise moments of emotional/physical comedy. Young's mumbling is classic as always, and his presence always makes a movie better. The star of the show (especially for Ric) was Charles Ruggles as Egbert Floud, the hick who refuses to conform to what his wife would like him to be. She buys him new suits and he has them destroyed. She gets him a valet, he treats him like a pal. His antics are very funny throughout the entire movie.

As the movie moves towards its end, one can see that the story is more than just a comedy - it's about the American dream of freedom, which is what Ruggles seeks. There's a great (although a little abrupt) scene in which he recites Lincoln's Gettysburg address, and later he tries to open his own business. I liked this extra layer to the movie, which would have been a good movie even without trying to make a point.

It's an instant classic in my book, and one I'm surprised I never saw as a kid. Great choice, Ryan!

I didn't know anything about this movie and the trailers didn't really give me a glimpse of what to expect, but I kept hearing positive things about it, so I reserved a couple of bucks for it and saw it at the cheap theater. If you are as unfamiliar as I was, the story is about a guy who decides to become a super hero despite the fact that he has no super powers. He orders a scuba suit online, puts on some rubber gloves, and starts training himself to fight and gain physical strength so that he can start fighting crime on his own. At the same time, a father and daughter team are doing their own form of crime fighting, with some specific targets in mind. Their paths are destined to cross, once the public get wind of costumed crime fighters in their city.

Maybe it's because I had zero expectations going into this movie, but it's actually one of my surprise favorites of the year. It's a parody of super hero movies in some ways, but holds its own with its story and characters, and tends to feel very genuine. I really liked Aaron Johnson as the hero. He is convincing in the various directions his character goes, and all the time spent with his character is great.

A surprising part of the movie for me was Nick Cage as the vigilante father. It could be his best role in years. His character is training his young daughter in weapons and fighting, and he does all of this with a big smile and positive attitude. For a long time, it seems like the movie just has a sick sense of humor (which it does at times), but we later find out that he's got a motive for what he does, and that his overall attitude is a sort of coping mechanism to shield his daughter from how dark their situation actually is. This is why I think it would have been great if the daughter had appeared a little more naive, rather than foul-mouthed; but I have to admit that for most of people who are watching a movie called Kick-Ass, I'm sure her lines were shockingly funny.

With Big Daddy and Hit Girl on the scene, Kick-Ass's crime fighting becomes much more significant, and the fight scenes are a spectacle to be sure. I loved the variety of weapons and fighting methods. And everything was accompanied by a pretty awesome soundtrack as well. I recognized a lot of the music, so it wasn't new-awesome - it just felt like a Kick-Ass party.

I can definitely see this movie lending itself to some repeat viewings in the future, especially if it's available for instant viewing on Netflix. Have I mentioned lately how much I love my Roku? I've been thinking about declaring this the Summer of Roku for myself. I'm packing in so many movies, and great ones at that. This blog is doomed to be incredibly behind, since last week I averaged about one movie per day between the Roku and the theater. Anyway, thanks for indulging that tangent. Kick-Ass lived up to its name.

I can't resist a movie by Jean-Pierre Jeunet. Most of you know his work because of Amelie (and if you kept track, he actually directed the Alien Resurrection movie, but let's just forget about that), but I knew him first for Delicatessen, and I think his movies are such a delight to watch. Jeunet just has a lyrical approach to his writing and directing. The creative situations his characters find themselves in, the visionary worlds in which they live (even if they live in present-day), and even the flow of movement in a scene are all so inspiring.

At the beginning of Micmacs, one such scene occurs, and a series of coincidences lead to an unfortunate accident for a video store clerk named Bazil. The choreography of the scene and the movements of the camera drew me in, and a smile spread across my face. That's what it's like watching a Jeunet movie.

Bazil basically ends up with a bullet lodged in his brain, and at any moment, it could move and kill him. After his recovery, he tries to resume his old life, but everyone else has moved on. He has no job and no place to live, and he takes to performing on the street. A fellow street person takes notice of him and takes him to his home, which is a buzzing sort of factory inside a cave of garbage at the dump that is home to many odd characters. The people who live there take damaged goods from the dump and make them new, and Bazil becomes their next project. Pretty soon, they're in a one-sided war with the weapons manufacturers who produced the bullet that's inside Bazil and the mine that killed his father.

In his review of the film, Roger Ebert wrote, "The invention upstages the story without seeming necessary to it... The production values of the film are splendid. Jeunet’s camera is so liberated that 'Micmacs' might as well be animated. But there’s a lack of urgency. The characters seem defined by the requirements of the plot.  ..There’s nobody in the story who much makes us care."

While I agree with all of these sentiments, I still enjoyed the movie. I can see his point about the quirks seeming unnecessary, yet I can cite a lot of unnecessary quirks or details in Jeunet's other movies; they are not central to the story, but they contribute to the movie's vision.

There is definitely a lack of urgency and the characters are following the motions of a plot without the audience feeling much of an emotional connection. That was my one problem with the movie. But to "care" can mean many things, and I think I cared for the endearing nature of the pack of characters as a whole.

The Jeunet sense of humor is in full effect, Max Steiner's music is so pleasant, Dominique Pinon always makes me laugh, and as Ebert says, Jeunet's eye is amazing. These were enough to make me smile and enjoy an afternoon at the movies. It isn't Jeunet's best, but that doesn't make it a bad movie, or even a disappointment from my point of view.

Autumn Sonata is another Ingmar Bergman movie. I just looked him up and realized how many times he was married. He and Liz Taylor should have hooked up. What brought that on? I just wanted to see if he was ever married to Liv Ullman since she starred in so many of his movies. They never married, but she did mother one of his (many) children. But this movie also stars one of the greatest actresses of all time, Ingrid Bergman (no relation to the director).

Bergman plays Charlotte, a famous pianist, who comes to stay at her grown daughter's home for a while after having lost a close friend. She hasn't seen Eva, in many years. It comes as a surprise to her that her other daughter, Helena, lives with Eva and her husband. Helena suffers from some sort of neurological condition and her motor skills have deteriorated, and Charlotte can barely face her. When she does, she turns on a performance. She seems to be giving a performance most of the time when she interacts with others. It doesn't take long for her presence in the house to remind Eva of all the emotional issues she has with her mother, and it's only a matter of time until they unfurl.

There are so many interesting elements to this movie that I don't think I have time to fully address any of them. The whole thing starts off with an introduction to Eva by her own husband, who speaks directly to the camera and serves as some sort of benevolent, omniscient presence that supports her without interfering in her problems. What he reveals is that he loves Eva but she is open about not loving him, or not being accepting of his love. The fact that he's a minister and some of the comments he makes throughout the movie left me a little uncertain of how to interpret his character. Helena serves as another interesting character, especially the possibility that her level of health represents Eva's emotional state. (I wish I could admit I thought of all of these ideas on my own, but I may have done a little reading online that inspired some of them.)

Between this movie and several others from Bergman, it's easy to see that he always wore his heart on his sleeve. His movies always reflect on some interest/issue in his own life, and this one examines love and parenting in a way that seems very personal. I think his flashbacks are almost always his most poignant scenes, and very often they reveal secrets or bring something new to light. They always feel like glimpses into a real past, and often feel so real that I feel like an intruder watching them. Then again, I felt like an intruder during a lot of this movie, so maybe it's not just the flashbacks. The climactic conversation between Eva and Charlotte is certainly something to behold.

Speaking of Charlotte and Eva, how amazing Bergman and Ullman are! This was Bergman's final movie role, and she plays Charlotte's busy, ignorant/retreating character so well it's painful. She was nominated for an Oscar for it, and that was a very well-deserved nomination. Of course, I would have nominated Ullman just as easily for her ability to go from zero to one hundred in intensity.

While Autumn Sonata sometimes feels like a play, the deliberate staging and framing of each scene is often very admirable. One of the scenes that stands out is the one above, where Eva plays the piano for her mother, and then her mother follows by showing her how it ought to be played. Ooh. Some of the shots of Ullman are just outstanding.

This movie worked so much more for me than Cries and Whispers, and I think that's because it wasn't so vague, and the undercurrents were allowed to come to the surface. I appreciated so many elements of how the story unfolded, and if anything, I'm glad I saw it for the performances alone.

I've finally reached the point in my Netflix queue where it's time to catch up with more Ingmar Bergman movies. When I mentioned that to my fellow movie-loving coworker, he said, "You might want to break those up a bit with some fun movies." Dude's got a point. Bergman movies are many things, but they are hardly ever a happy experience.

Every once in a while, I strike upon a movie that brings out my inner teenager - confused, naive, and reactive. While watching Cries and Whispers, I felt that guttural reaction well up inside of me. There were lots of "What the --?" moments when I realized this movie wasn't just about a young woman who is dying. It's Agnes' dying days and severe pain that cause her sisters to revisit old memories and repressed emotions. There are flashbacks to each woman's past, and their pasts are twisted. And gosh, I don't know if I should just get it out there and say it or save it for anyone who actually thinks they'll watch this movie, but teenager in me couldn't get over one of the scenes. I know, I'm immature, but sticking glass up there ... Nope, I'm out. Anna, the maid's naked nurturing is a little bit odd as well.

The grownup in me was able to recover and appreciate many aspects of this movie, from the striking uses of color to the beautiful closeups and fantastic acting from Harriet Andersson, Ingrid Thulin, and Liv Ullman. The emotional dynamics of the four women involved (which includes Anna, the maid) are all very interesting. I wanted to know more about their younger years to understand why Karin ended up seeming so detached yet feeling everything acutely, or why Maria overdoes everything but probably feels nothing. There's one glimpse into the past, when we see their mother, and it's a window, but a tiny one.

Overall, I felt like I was skimming the surface of these women while simultaneously being dumped into some of their most secret moments. It was uncomfortable yet powerful. I have yet to grow up enough to say that I liked this movie, but appreciated much of what Bergman was trying to do. But ultimately, I wouldn't necessarily recommend it to anyone except the serious Bergman fan.

I have no idea why I was so excited about seeing this movie. I think it had to do with John Cusack getting back into the spirit of fun movies. When he's having fun, I'm having fun. And there's certainly a lot of fun in Hot Tub Time Machine.

The story is about a group of friends who are all dissatisfied with their grown-up lives, who decide to go on a ski trip to their favorite lodge from their college years. When they get there, it's a dump, but at least the hot tub works, and when they spill a drink on it, it takes them back to the 1980s. They all look like their young selves, and after some cryptic words from m Chevy Chase, they decide to live out the weekend exactly as they did in the 80s so that they won't mess up anything in their future, and once they get through it all, they'll return to the hot tub and go back home.

Of course, each of these men are battling issues from their present-day lives. John Cusack's character is in the middle of a divorce, and he wonders whether he should have stayed with his girlfriend from the 80s. Craig Robinson's character has recently been cheated on, but he's whipped, and still wants to return to his wife; if he relives his weekend from the 80s, he'll end up cheating on his present-day wife. Rob Cordry's character is a jerk with not much of a future in present-day, and has no desire to go through with what happened in the 80s weekend, because he takes a beating when none of his friends show up to back him up in a fight. As each guy faces his past, he examines his present. Each has to decide whether or not to go through with the 80s weekend or to try doing something different that could affect their futures (or their chances of getting back home).

I like that the characters are aware of the time-travel genre while they are inside of it. They play around with the idea and the possibilities it holds, and they're allowed to do that because they've already lived this weekend in the 80s (as opposed to Marty McFly, who constantly visits times he has never pre-experienced). They aren't running around trying to avoid their younger selves because they are their younger selves and older selves in the same instance.

I also enjoyed how the movie winks at other time-travel flicks, especially with the casting choice of Crispin Glover as the bell hop. This small role is a stroke of genius.

And of course, Hot Tub Time Machine is all about acknowledging the 80s. Anyone who lived through the decade must experience a wave of nostalgia while watching this movie, especially in the scene where the heroes realize what has happened to him. What's playing on the radio, what's on tv, and what people are wearing (including a "Where's the Beef" t-shirt).. it's everything I loved about the 80s or everything I love to hate about them.

The movie is completely irreverent at times. A realistic explanation of the circumstances that allow for time travel isn't necessary. The vessel is a time machine, and the catalyst is an energy drink. The heroes are caught up in a crazy plot of where to be at what time, but always pause to watch and see whether the (present-day one-armed) bellboy will lose his arm when he's in a precarious situation. Rob Cordry's character is crass, annoying, and insane. It's a crazy assembly of plot, setting, and character, but somehow it works.

I might have done with a little bit less of Rob Cordry's antics, but overall, I was surprised to find myself laughing quite a bit. The nostalgia factor was a big one for me, but I liked all of the little ideas that Hot Tub Time Machine explored. Cusack is back in form, and Robinson is hilarious. For two dollars, I'd say I got a good deal.

Since I know a few of you who read my blog actually do come to find out what I'm up to as opposed to what I'm watching, here's a Monday update post for you, for the first time in a while!

Let's see. The last time I updated was a month ago. Sorry about that.

Over the holiday weekend, Ric and I went out to AZ to see his brother's family. We had plenty of time to talk, played Mario Wii games, and even had an evening out at Peter Piper Pizza. It was so great to catch up. I love hanging out with all of my in-laws. The following weekend Ric and I were nervous about a dinner we were having with some people from his work. We weren't sure if it was about something serious, and when we found ourselves headed to a posh Pasadena neighborhood, we started worrying. It turned out Ric had forgotten that a lady from his work really wanted to try his home brew, and the whole dinner was planned around it. Haha. The weekend after that, I went with the Agadonis to help Jonathan celebrate his graduation out at the shoreline in Long Beach. It was a beautiful day, we met lots of nice folks, and good food and drink were had by all. My sister and I also made an excursion to Pasadena with Brendan to see Micmacs at the new Arclight theater in Pasadena, which was a treat in movie experiences. This past weekend, the Agadonis and I went to a movie night at Christopher's in Huntington Beach and had a chance to hang out some more with Jonathan while he's in the country. We all watched the Book of Eli in style and had some awesome dinner and dessert.

Oh yeah! Short Fridays are back here at work. I'm off the clock at 11:30 or 12, depending on when I come in to work. The first Friday, a bunch of us from work went to Disneyland together. The next, I explored the trails of Carbon Canyon Regional Park. The next, I went to the Getty Center. And the next, the Agadonis and I went to the La Brea Tar Pits together. I'm determined to make full use of the time off this summer, and so far it has been a blast. I am open to suggestions of places to go, by the way!

On the home front, Ric and I are back into re-organization mode. We bought a new desk so that we would no longer be restricted by the corner desk that we originally bought for the house we rented in uptown Whittier. We only used the desk uptown for three months, but have been stuck with it ever since, and it really has determined a lot of our home set up since then. So now that we don't have to use a corner, we've shifted around our bookshelves so that we have an awesome wall that is completely filled with books. I spent a long time re-organizing all of our books on Saturday. We ordered a kitty litter cabinet that looks like a sort of end table/cabinet, which will hopefully make the office look a bit nicer. Since we took a bookcase out of the living room, it's more roomy in there, and we're shoving around the couches trying to find the right set up (it'll mostly be the same, but it's a little less awkward). Meanwhile, we're planning on getting new flooring installed, but have been incredibly lazy about researching installer information.

Things at work have started slowing down. Summer classes are in full effect and registration is minimal. I'm plugging away on my monotonous, mountainous project of entering transfer school catalogs into our software system. I keep myself entertained by watching shows on Hulu. Thankfully, the World Cup came at the right time. Many of us in the office have each chosen a team to represent and root for, and we're all giving each other a hard time when our teams play against each other. I've got Spain, who are doing well enough for now! Our office hallway is decorated with flags and team colors. Oh yeah! I got an award for all of my monotonous work too. :) Our office leaders held a nice luncheon to thank those of us who worked on the big software conversion, and a few of us received Banner MVP awards. I was really touched by the descriptions the managers gave of my work.

Gosh, I'm sure there are plenty of other things to update about, but that's all I can think of for now. I hope that each of you is doing well and taking advantage of summer. I'm having a great one so far!

I'm quickly falling behind in movie reviews again, partly due to laziness and partly due to the World Cup. It would be amazing if one day I were able to post movie reviews just a couple days after seeing the movies. However, I do like the fact that the memories of the movie have time to marinate in my mind before I write about them.

I had never heard of the street artist known as Banksy until a couple of months ago, when coworker emailed me a link to photos of his work and I thought they were some of the most creative things I had seen in a long time. The idea that what is known as vandalism can actually be something artistic has always been an interesting thing to me. There are times when I think illegal artwork should be allowed to stay, because it makes something more beautiful or entertaining. A few years back, my sister and I saw stencils of Ralph Macchio here and there in the greater LA area and found them highly entertaining, especially because they were often in precarious places that must have caused the artist a lot of trouble. For us, the absurdity of the subject and the creative places he appeared made us appreciate the work.

When I saw Banksy's work and found out a movie was coming out about him, I made a point to drive out to Irvine for the movie. Exit Through the Giftshop presents itself as a documentary made by Banksy himself. He was supposed to be the subject of a documentary created by Thierry Guetta, a Frenchman who turned his camera obsession (he literally has boxes and boxes of filmed moments from his own life) onto the arena of street art. When Thierry gets obsessed with anything, he overdoes it to the extreme, and decides to become a street artist himself. So, while the movie starts out introducing us to street art through the eyes of Thierry, Banksy turns the focus onto Thierry completely, especially his over-hyped and overambitious art show. I have no idea how much of Thierry's story is actually real, because as the movie progresses, it becomes increasingly obvious that this isn't a true documentary. It feels more and more like a mockumentary, but there's a level of genuineness and plenty of footage that make one feel that a lot of it is original material. Whatever the case may be, it's always intriguing and entertaining.

The first half of the movie does essentially function as an introduction to street art. Like the Ralph Machcchio stenciler, there are plenty of artists out there that use the same image or idea and replicate it in many creative ways on walls, sidewalks, etc. One guy makes mosaics of Space Invader creatures and attaches them to buildings as if they have always been a part of the structure. Another takes Andre the Giant's face and plasters large posters of it with the word "Obey" underneath it. Another traces shadows of objects like street lights so that they can be seen at all times of the day. Banksy's art often makes much deeper statements. Just Google it if you want to see some examples.

The more I saw as the movie progressed, the more impressed I was. Then, as the build up to learning more about Banksy increased, the movie shifted onto Thierry's obsession with becoming a street artist. He jumps in quickly with a single image of himself holding a camera and starts imitating the people he has been following. Pretty soon, he's staging a huge art show and promoting it with Banksy's endorsement. This whole segment is quite the spectacle. I loved that it addressed so many ideas, about the line between imitation and art, what makes a person an artist, what gives art value, what does the public know about art and how is the public swayed to love or hate it, whether true art can emerge in our current society, how commercialism works with or against art, etc.

The list can go on and on, but what I love about the movie is that all of these ideas are addressed at one point or another through contrasting Thierry and the other street artists. At some level, I wish we could have had more direct access to Banksy himself and hear more about what statements he wants to make or how he got started doing what he does. But his preferred anonymity and mysteriousness is what interests people, isn't it? Would his work be as exciting if we had all the answers? Perhaps not. If people knew who he was, he certainly wouldn't be able to do as much as he does. So, I'm happy with what I saw, which was an entertaining, smart, and funny look at a genre of art that I had never been exposed to until this year (where have I been?). And the first thing I wanted to do when I got home was start painting walls. I wonder if I could talk Ric into it...

These days, I seem to catch a lot of movies at the discount theater, because the movie trailers just aren't selling the movies to me. Is it due to poorly-made trailers, or have I just seen so many trailers that nothing looks very new or exciting? In any case, the trailers for Shutter Island made it look like a generic horror movie, which held no interest for me. Once it received some positive reviews, I decided I could risk $2; I know, I'm a Scorsese fan, but I was one of few who haven't been all that impressed with his more recent work.

At any rate, I was so glad I went to see it! The movie follows a Marshal who is sent to Shutter Island, which houses a mental hospital for the criminally insane. He served in WWII and saw the liberation of Dachau, and as he investigates the case of a missing patient on the island, we see several flashbacks of his experience there, as well as flashbacks or dreams of his dead wife. The flashbacks and dream sequences are, well, glorious. The images are striking, haunting, weird, moving, and beautiful. The music selection that accompanies them is perfect. On a side note, I wanted to buy some pieces from the soundtrack but was upset to find that one can't buy individual songs from it - only the whole thing. That's your loss, marketers (and mine too, I guess).

The whole movie reminded me of a classic psychological drama, along the lines of Hitchcock's Spellbound. I'm sure Scorsese would appreciate that comparison, on which I will not elaborate in case it gives any spoilers away for Shutter Island, although I don't think revealing the spoilers would ruin the movie experience. From the movie's beginning, it was pretty apparent where it was headed, even if I didn't know exactly how it would end. It's how the movie plays out that makes me appreciate it. Leonardo DiCaprio plays the lead role, and he is accompanied by an awesome cast that includes Ben Kingsley, Max Von Sydow, Emily Mortimer, Michelle Williams, Mark Ruffalo, Patricia Clarkson, and Jackie Earle Hayley. With such a cast, and the beautiful directorial eye, it's no wonder the material works.

The only complaint I would have about Shutter Island would be about the explanatory tone of the final act. I think there's too much time spent on resolution, and the final scenes drag a bit. It's almost as if so much fervor had been put into the rest of the movie that creativity kind of went out the door for the ending. I think that's why when I left the theater, I wasn't too sure what I thought about the movie as a whole. As I've had time to reflect back on it, I've realized I liked it quite a bit. It doesn't rank at the top of my Scorsese list, but I would probably place it above the likes of The Departed. I'll have to see what repeat viewings will do to my opinion; I'd like to make sure I wasn't just relieved that I wasn't watching a horror movie, but I'm pretty sure it will hold up over time. There are some scenes that are so memorable that I don't think I'll forget them.

Trailers can't always capture the magic of a movie, and that is definitely the case with Fantastic Mr. Fox, a movie which I kept putting off because the trailers didn't seem very interesting. I should have remembered that a Wes Anderson movie is always worth it for one reason or another (usually visuals or soundtracks). In this case, the movie was worth it for the entire thing.

Anderson's first full-length stop-motion animation feature opens with Mr. Fox in his younger days, in the midst of sneaking about a farm in search of food. He's funny, mischievous, and adventurous. When he gets caught mid-caper, he promises to settle down. He does so for many years, but the itch comes back and he decides to pull off one more raid - or at least, one huge plan that includes three big raids on three of the most challenging farms possible: the farms of Boggis, Bunce, and Bean.

I was so surprised by this movie. From the very earliest scenes, I kept mentally kicking myself for not catching it on the big screen. Stop-motion animation is not an easy process, and combined with Anderson's aesthetic, every frame of the movie is a visual feast. Oranges and yellows flow in the form of landscape, decor, costumes, and more.

Everything moves at a quick pace, the vocals from the actors are crisp and played on the right note, and it's all accompanied by a score from Alexandre Desplat (just looked him up and am excited to see he's working on the final Harry Potter movie, although I hope that doesn't mean the music won't lose the magical touch). There's nothing not to like.

The themes, humor, sights, and sounds all worked for me. I'll definitely be watching this movie several more times in my future, and it just might become a long-term favorite.

Mongolian baby FTW! Haha. So my sister and I took my mom and grandma to see Babies for Mother's Day. I know it's not necessarily supposed to be a contest, but I found the Mongolian baby to be the most entertaining to watch. I loved his curious adventures with animals and his older brother. I quite possibly could have watched an entire movie about little Bayar and Co.; There's nothing quite like watching a kid drag a cat on a leash across the floor.

If you haven't heard about the movie, it is a documentary about four different babies raised in different parts of the world. It follows them from birth to their first steps, showing us their universal experiences and cultural differences.

One interesting aspect about the movie is that it has no narration or interviews. It simply gives us glimpses of the babies' lives - how they're born, how they're entertained, where their parents take them, how they learn to crawl, how they interact with people or animals, etc. While I like that anyone can watch the movie and understand it, this lack of narration does cause the movie to feel a little bit slow. With no directional push and so many quiet scenes, I felt like there was no way of knowing how long the movie was.

I'm curious about how the four babies and their families were selected for the movie. Did the filmmakers see these families as representative of the norm for their location? If so, the hippie family from San Francisco was an interesting choice. They live in a very nice house in one of the most expensive cities, take their baby to classes where they sing to Mother Earth, and do some naked jacuzzi time with the baby as well. Is this family supposed to represent San Francisco, California, or America? Or are they just one family with their own way of doing things? Likewise, the couple in Japan seemed to have a decent amount of money as well. The two contrast strongly with the babies from Namibia and Mongolia.

One thing I loved was what can be learned about animals in Babies. Animals are patient beyond belief and have good instincts around little, helpless beings. Dogs let the baby in Namibia pull their ears and put hands in their mouths. Cattle carefully step around the Mongolian baby who's left on his own around the family's hut. Cats, who are usually so opinionated and commanding, lie back and let kids do whatever they want. It was pretty bizarre to see how none of the animals lashed out at the babies, even when being put in uncomfortable situations. If I have kids, I'm praying that Pip will behave similarly. Haha.

Just in case anyone is wondering about it, this movie is rated PG, but the natural scenes of motherhood are featured without editing. I don't know what Grandma thought of all the boobs up on the big screen, but I did feel a little weird watching it with her even though I know she knows what boobs look like.

Overall, I was a little bit disappointed in this movie. It is a great concept, but I think I might have enjoyed it more if I could have learned more. It would have been great to hear the parents' perspective of raising babies. That would have helped me learn about cultural similarities and differences at more than just a surface level. The babies themselves certainly are cute, and there are plenty of little laughs. It ended up being a decent choice for Mother's Day, but it just didn't live up to its potential for me.