Veronica Guerin (2003, U.S.)

Cate Blanchett is one of my all-time favorite actresses. No matter what part she's in, she's brilliant. This was no exception. She shone in the true story of Veronica Guerin, an Irish reporter who exposed the Dublin drug trade in the mid-1990s. She carries on through threats, a gunshot to the leg, and a beating, determined to clean up Dublin society. She's ultimately murdered in 1996.

Veronica Guerin obviously had to be a fearless, determined, and admirable woman, which Blanchett conveys well. Unfortunately, I found the writing to be sometimes convoluted and not fast-paced enough for the subject. Perhaps most Irish viewers familiar with the subject would have followed better that doesn't change the pacing.

Overall I found it educational, a great performance for Blanchett, but just too slow.

Rating: 3.0

Intermission (2003, Ireland)

This film begs comparison to Crash in that it follows the lives of a group of Irish men and women whose lives intersect in the most unlikely and also likely ways.

It was seamlessly pieced together, almost like a dance. Parts were laugh-out-loud funny, parts were touching, parts were hard to watch. The writing was very strong, as was the performance of a great ensemble. I would recommend this one.

Rating: 3.5

Brothers (2009, U.S.)

This is the kind of modern war film that there should be more of. I think that they really failed in marketing this one, however. While they made it seem like a movie about two brothers in love with the same woman, that was nowhere near the truth.

Instead, it was about the psychological damage done to a good soldier who was taken prisoner by the Taliban and forced to do unspeakable things, things that he couldn't tell anyone about—not his wife, not his superiors, and not his brother. Tobey Maguire did an absolutely brilliant job of portraying a man whose control is unraveling. It was an interesting contrast to his brother, an ex-con who spends his time trying to hold his brother's family together, for little thanks and a mountain of accusations. Jake Gyllenhaal and Natalie Portman are two of the most talented actors I can think of, and they were wonderful too.

And of course, beautiful score by Thomas Newman. That man has a gift.

Rating: 3.5

Camille (2007, U.S.)

Possibly the most bizarre movie I have ever, ever seen.

Silas is a thief who marries his parole officer's niece Camille. He's not allowed out of the state, but he uses his future wife's uncle's sympathies in the hope that he can use his honeymoon to escape to Canada. Camille has always dreamed of honeymooning at Niagara Falls, and she cheerfully deludes herself into thinking that the honeymoon will change her scummy man for the better.

What follows is the strangest road trip movie of all time. Because Silas and Camille get in a fatal motorcycle accident. That's right, fatal. Camille dies, but she keeps on with her honeymoon. And it's her death that finally pushes Silas in the right direction.

They have all sorts of adventures, running from the police, hanging out with carnies, visiting the falls... Franco and Miller give just the right touch of humor and seriousness to this macabre love story, creating a strangely enjoyable movie experience.

Carolina (2003, U.S.)

This was a very sweet, funny, clever movie about family and finding your own identity. Of course, that identity is partially influenced by your family, but partly you.

It's also about finding (and more importantly recognizing) the things that are good for you. What you think you want isn't always what you really want or even need.

Aside from all the sweetness, it was really very funny. The writing was fantastic, truly. A girl who works on a dating show with a best friend who's a straight Jewish man working as a romance writer... brilliant! And anything with Shirley MacLaine is bound to be a winner. I have never known anyone like that woman for a laugh.

Rating: 3.5

New Moon (2009, U.S.)

Wow. New Moon definitely dominated Twilight in terms of being able to treat it like a serious film. But I think a lot of that is in the director. Chris Weitz must be an amazing guy to work for. Remember The Golden Compass? Based on one of my favorite books of all time, but the script was terrible. Weitz took a bad thing and did the best he could with it, and it truly was amazing—apart from the writing. His directing, combined with some seriously talented (and under-appreciated) actors, made for fantastic drama.

In the beginning, there was a very short amount of time to establish how deep Bella and Edward's relationship is, and yet they defined that clearly. (And, might I add, made Edward look way yummier than should be allowed—more on that later.) In the few minutes she has to interact with the Cullens, in the beginning and the end, all of their relationship dynamics are clear too. I was very impressed with how well the acting conveyed so many small things. Every person on that cast is talented. They have their own moments, but they don't outshine each other. Bella's human friends, the Cullens, the werewolves... they all fit together and play their parts beautifully. (And random note on acting: I've always hated Dakota Fanning's smug little face. And her irritating lack of talent paired with the world gushing about her. And here, she plays the worst of the vampires, and it was all too easy to hate her. But was it as easy for everyone else? Because she didn't do very much acting...)

Special effects—infinitely, infinitely improved from Twilight. The wolf transformations were completely seamless, the fighting realistic. And the wolves looked exactly as they were supposed to—like real wolves, but the size of horses. They also clearly upgraded the diamond skin effect, and when they showed Edward's face in the sun, he looked a lot more like the mesmerizing, beautiful man you imagine in the book. And the fights between the vampires. Wow. They did such an amazing job of showing speed and grace without resorting to cheesy sound effects or stupid jumping around on trees. It was graceful and lethal and fast, all at once. The choreographer must be a genius.

Now at the risk of going all fangirl-ish, a paragraph on chests. One thing that really bothered me, however, was Edward's naked torso. In the book, Meyer describes Edward (ad nauseum) as having a beautifully (her word) sculpted (her word) chest, like a statue. In reality, we're faced with Robert Pattinson's (bless him) scrawny, unhealthy-looking physique. Would it really have been that hard to superimpose said sculpture over the reality? Or for him to eat something and lift a few weights? Take a page out of Taylor Lautner's book, RPattz! That kid is 17 years old (that's six years younger than our favorite grungy Brit), and yet he somehow put on enough muscle to put even the most dedicated health nut to shame. Even one 10 or 15 years older. When he first pulled off his shirt, there was a very audible collective sigh in the audience. We're talking loud. And mostly women old enough to be his grandmothers. It boggles the mind.

But enough of that. Though on the subject of Jacob, I have to say that Lautner may be a great actor one day. Because I truly believed that Taylor Lautner was Jacob Black. The infectious smile, the physical presence, the bantering, the caring... Incredible. The other two are kind of like that too. Great acting, have I mentioned?

They also stayed pretty close to the book, probably more so than the first installment. I would have liked to see Stewart walking around holding herself together with her arm a bit more, but still, she did a remarkably good job of portraying a girl falling apart because of a broken heart. I especially loved that they used a similar tactic to Meyer's when they showed time passing and Bella not improving. Great stuff. And using the dream where Bella thought she was her grandmother. And certain instances of dialogue and physical behavior... I could go on and on. And probably on some more.

So I will end with one of the most important things to me—music. When I saw the last movie, I mentioned that I hated the use of modern music, which dates the film. However, I've since changed my mind on that stance. There were a few gems in the first movie, but there were even more in this one that really fit the mood and theme. "Satellite Heart" was one of my personal favorites, as was "Possibility." Some of the songs were used quite effectively, while others would have fit perfectly in places they weren't used. It was hit or miss, but (most) of the songs were pretty good. The big disappointment was that there were no more Robert Pattison songs used... and they really would have fit with the quieter feel of this soundtrack. Fingers crossed for Eclipse. The score. Yes. Alexandre Desplat has been one of my favorite composers for a long time, and he didn't disappoint here. When I listened to the score before the movie came out, I wasn't sure how it would work... but it did. Perfectly. He has a gift for matching music to the screen, and even if all of the songs don't really stand alone outside of the movie (though some do, of course), it doesn't matter. Because they enhance the on-screen action wonderfully. (And, much as I love Carter Burwell, I was beyond thrilled that Desplat didn't stick with Burwell's weird electronic suspense-type themes. That was a huge mistake in the scoring of Twilight, I think.)

Anyway, loved it. Can't quite give it 5 stars. Mostly because some stuff was missing. (Like how they tried to make Jake look like a perfect guy—where was him forcing himself on Bella and her breaking her fist on his face?!) That's a specific example, but there are a lot of other things—feelings, actions, lines—that were just missing something. (I mentioned Bella's arm before. That's a good example.) Still, loved it. Did I mention?

Can't wait to see it again. And buy it. And see Eclipse in June! (I can probably wait a lot longer for Breaking Dawn. I shudder to think about that film.) And as another side note, I cannot believe it's been a whole year since I was at the midnight premier of Twilight with Stacey and Hanna. Wish they were here now!

Okay, really done now.

Rating: 4.5

How To Lose Friends & Alienate People (2008, UK)

I'm not sure why I wanted to watch this movie. I think it's because every time I see a movie with Simon Pegg, I assume it will be the type of movie I hate, and yet I always like it. He is just someone who can pull off the kind of comedy that doesn't appeal to me and make it truly funny. And he can do the good, witty kind too. I like that.

Basically, this is about an irritating English journalist who crashes parties and irritates celebrities. When he crashes the big Sharp's magazine party, he thinks he's going to get it from Clayton Sharp. Instead, he gets a job there. Even though he irritates people, he has a remarkable sense of journalistic integrity. It's only when he gives up that integrity that he can succeed in his career, however.

I liked this movie. It was funny, it cast attention-seeking type celebrities in a negative light, it highlighted the things that really matter in life. Not what I was expecting, but a nice surprise. I'd definitely recommend it.

Oh, and Kirsten Dunst might finally be growing on me.

Rating: 3.5

How To Be (2008, UK)

I gather that this film was supposed to be pretty funny. And although I'm a bit of an Anglophile, it may have just been too British for me, because most of my laughing was in an "Are they serious?" type way.

Art is having an existential crisis, post break-up. He realizes that his family has never shown him much love and he doesn't know what he wants to do with his life. So he hires a Canadian self-help guru to come to London and help him out, naturally.

Pattinson was pretty amazing as Art. He's sensitive and unsure of himself and awkward and an all-out misfit. (Then again, something tells me that this is the really Robert Pattinson, behind the heartthrob mask.)

Of course the ultimate message here was to be who you are and do what makes you happy. It was touching, and sometimes even funny. Just not my favorite movie of all time.

Rating: 3.0

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009, U.S,)

And I cannot believe I'm saying this, but I really liked this movie. Really. I like a good action movie when it's done well, and this was. It actually had a plot (*gasp*), cool technology that seemed feasible, awesome action sequences (military/gun type and martial arts/hand to hand style), decent acting, funny one-liners... and major eye candy. Channing Tatum has never really been my type of guy, but every time I see him in a military movie, I forget all about that! Ha ha.

The concept of an evil genius taking over the world by creating armies of men whose brains he controlled with nanotechnology and by using nanos to create weapons of mass destruction... wow. It sounds ridiculous when I type it, but the fact that the movie was so convincing on such ridiculous ideas is what made it good.

Seriously, I never thought I'd say it, but if you want a good mindless (and yet somehow thoughtful) action movie, look no further than G.I. Joe. From the ending, I'd say they intended to have a sequel. I hope they do!

Rating: 4.0

Love Story (1970, U.S.)

Yes, I finally saw it. Was I impressed? Not so much. Perhaps it's one of those movies that just has so much hype (hello, half the girls born after 1970 are named Jennifer!) that there's no way it can live up. Or perhaps it's cheap melodrama.

Look, it has some positive points. For instance, there was obvious chemistry between O'Neal and MacGraw. I loved all their witty banter in the beginning. The part of the story when they were falling in love was much better than the part about their marriage and aftermath.

And the (Oscar-winning) score was lovely. But redundant. Seriously, there were shots that seemed to last for five minutes with the same few bars playing over and over again. The score was just repetitive, and the use of long shots was not effective. Combined... yikes.

If you're looking for some romance that ends happily until the tragically-ever-after, you're better off watching a movie based on Sparks—Message in a Bottle, The Notebook, A Walk to Remember, even the not-so-great Nights in Rodanthe might be better than this one.

Sorry, all you ladies who were my age in 1970. I just don't see how it became a classic.

Rating: 2.5

Saving Private Ryan (1998, U.S.)

It only took me 11 years to see Saving Private Ryan. Travesty, I know. And this is really going to kill people, but it wasn't nearly as wonderful as I imagined it would be.

The concept was great. The score, beautiful. The acting, convincing. The cinematography, breathtaking. Yet somehow, it just didn't quite get me.

The opening scene was incredible. I thought it really captured the essence of war—the chaos, the fear, the horror. But then it kept going. And going. Perhaps the point was that war is like that. The horrors never end, and all that. But there were so many scenes that could have been just as effective if they were cut in half. Or even quartered. (Is this how other people felt about Australia?)

And I think this was really my primary quarrel with this film. While, as I mentioned before, the usual elements were in place to make this the kind of film I would love forever, instead it felt like it would just go on and on forever. I'm pretty disappointed to feel this way.

Rating: 3.0

Water's Edge (2003, U.S.)

Calling this a formulaic thriller would be an exaggeration. It wasn't even that good. Not that the idea was bad, but the writing and (most of) the acting was pretty awful. (Can't discount the power of Nathan Fillion, although even he wasn't in top form.)

Basically, an author and his wife are having a hard time in life, so they move out to his dad's old cabin in the middle of nowhere America. (Sounds like both of the horror/thriller type movies I watched recently—but without Kristen Stewart.) When he's out in the woods one day, he stumbles upon the county sheriff beating a woman to death. Well, he can't have that, so he shoots the sheriff. (Can you hear the cheesy music playing in the background?)

Husband and wife proceed to uncover a web of sex, lies, and murder in small town America. Most of the characters' motivation is unclear, as are several of the plot twists. All in all, a pretty awful piece of filmmaking. But hey, if you love Nathan Fillion, go ahead and watch it anyway.

Rating: 2.0

Waitress (2007, U.S.)

This film had some great potential, and it lived up to most of it. Keri Russell is adorable as a waitress (and good cook) who works at a pie restaurant, stuck in a marriage to an abusive scumbag. She finds herself pregnant with her husband's child and is less than thrilled. And somewhere along the way, she falls for her OB/GYN. Come on, you would too if it were Nathan Fillion!

Really, this was an amazing indie. The ensemble cast was terrific, all the way down to Andy Griffith, who makes an appearance as the grouchy owner of the pie place. I loved the way she invents pies that have to do with her life: "I Hate My Husband Pie," "Earl Murders Me Because I'm Having an Affair Pie," "Pregnant Miserable Self-Pitying Loser Pie," etc. The ingredients somehow make sense for the feeling, and they show the pie being made from the crust up. It's pretty neat. And I love the way how she and the doctor she has an affair with seem to have a real connection. They talk, he listens to her, they're friends as much as lovers. Movies aren't always like that. Because her husband is awful, you're glad she is having an affair—until you meet the doc's wife, and she's a perfectly normal human being and a good wife. Because the affair suddenly made no sense to me from the doc's viewpoint, I completely lost it with the movie there. And that was sad.

Still, there's a lot of good stuff in there. It's a slice of real life, if you'll excuse the pun.

Rating: 3.5

Serenity (2005, U.S.)

I'm really glad this movie got made. It was so nice to have answers to all the big questions, like where the Reavers came from and what "two by two, hands of blue" actually meant. (Although the Reavers made my skin crawl a lot more when I didn't know where they came from.) On the other hand, it definitely felt like they were trying to cram a whole lot of information into a film that wasn't even two hours long. I think they could have stretched it out a bit.

Still, they did an amazing job. It's really hard to talk about it without comparing it to the series, though, and I'm guessing not many people reading this (if anyone even does) have seen the series. Suffice is to say that the acting, writing, and effects were on par with the series (and sometimes better.)

Even with this "conclusion," Firefly will always be one of those series that could have gone a lot farther. Since it didn't, Serenity was just what the captain ordered.

Rating: 4.0

The Haunted Airman (2006, UK)

What a crazy film. There was a lot of psychological baggage to cram into 68 minutes, and it was definitely a head trip. I went into it thinking that I would probably like it, because the previews looked incredible. And I will say that I did, in fact, like it, though I say this with reservations. Because mostly I was confused.

From what I gathered, this British pilot was shot down during World War II and lost the use of his legs. He goes to a creepy recovery home, as far from the war as he could be. He starts to lose his mind, feeling spiders everywhere and seeing things that aren't there. Or perhaps he doesn't. Perhaps his doctor is actually pushing him into these delusions. Meanwhile, the RAF pilot has been having an affair with his deceased uncle's wife, and they let her come stay at the hospital too. It's just a bunch of weirdness. And the end will really blow your mind.

I definitely need to see this again to understand it better. But I can say that the cinematography was incredible. And the acting was superb. This is a 20-year-old Pattinson who acts like he's been at it for decades. (In reality, he'd just been in Vanity Fair, where his scenes were cut; a made-for-European-tv movie, where he had very few lines; and The Goblet of Fire, in which he made us all fall in love with Cedric Diggory.) The intensity with which he portrayed this character and his fractured mind was simply mind-blowing. Previously unknown gems like this make it clear that Pattinson has real talent, and isn't just a lucky boy (to land HP and Twilight roles) with a pretty face (and musical talent and bad hygiene).

Rating: 3.5

Silk (2007, ?)

Look, I just didn't like it. I don't know what else to say. Keira Knightly was beautiful and perfect in her role, which was a minor one. Michael Pitt I can always live without. And I think anyone can live without an in depth look at the Belgian silk trade and an unattractive man who cheats on his beautiful wife with a beautiful Japanese woman who he can't even speak to. Where's the appeal here?

Something tells me that the novel was a lot more about the wife, but the script sure didn't show it. It was long and slow and underwhelming. While these can be good qualities, they weren't in this case.

I can safely say that the cinematography was beautiful. But a good DP can only take a film so far.

Rating: 2.0

James Dean (2001, U.S.)

I'm a huge Dean fan. Own all his movies (and a few tv performances), read several biographies, have visited his hometown/museum/birthplace/grave site. I've been putting off seeing this made-for-tv biopic because I just had a feeling they wouldn't do him justice.

I was right.

Surprisingly, I thought the best part of the film was Jame Franco. I say it's surprising partially because I find Franco to be hit or miss with his performances and because I didn't think anyone could really play Dean. Franco wasn't perfect, but it was obvious that he'd gone to considerable effort to study Dean and his mannerisms, and he wasn't bad at all. I thought he came remarkably close to capturing the brilliant, fragile, remarkable, talented, insecure, artistic, unique, and perhaps slightly crazy Dean.

The sets were also great, particularly the sets of the sets of East of Eden. (Incidentally, events during the filming of East of Eden were pretty consistently documented with the least disagreement, and therefore these scenes in the biopic seemed the most realistic.)

For the most part, I was disappointed. For one thing, they tried to cram an incredible life into only 95 minutes, flying here and there and skipping over very important parts of his life. (Though at least they captured his relationship with his father fairly well.) They also skipped over any discussion of his bisexuality. While this could have been a fair choice (since the issue is widely debated), I really didn't like their portrayal of him as so clearly heterosexual either. Perhaps I just didn't like their Pier Angeli.

They should have kept the working title of James Dean: An Invented Life. I think they just tried to hard to present their film as fact, when so much of Dean's life, especially his personal life, was clouded.

Rating: 2.5

Enchanted (2007, U.S.)

I wasn't expecting too much from this one, but I actually ended up liking it. A mixed live action and animated film is always risky, but I think it worked in this case. Amy Adams is a fairytale princess who is sent to New York City in the real world by an evil queen. Princess Giselle begins to change her views on life and love after meeting a handsome lawyer played by Patrick Dempsey.

Patrick Dempsey was just an unfortunate casting choice. The man is not a great actor, or even that attractive. Thankfully, Amy Adams is so vivacious she takes over the screen, and everyone else pales in comparison anyway. (Also, casting Idina Menzel in a minor, non-singing sort of role is really unfortunate.) Anyway, plus Susan Sarandon as the evil witch, and this was pretty engaging for a kids' flick.

As for music, wow. This was Disney at its best, especially Princess Giselle's house cleaning song. I was almost tempted to download the soundtrack!

Rating: 3.5

Appaloosa (2008, U.S.)

I really have next to nothing to say about this one. I can't really even remember what the plot was about. I do remember that Renée Zellweger was underwhelming (unusual), Ed Harris was Ed Harris (underwhelming), and Viggo Mortensen was Viggo Mortensen (understated but wonderful performance).

I think westerns just aren't my thing. Maybe this movie wasn't bad, but it bored me to tears. Disappointing.

Rating: 2.0

Kung Fu Panda (2008, U.S.)

Po, a panda voiced by Jack Black, is chosen as the Dragon Warrior (the protector or the village), even though he's overweight, has no skill at martial arts, and is completely hopeless.

For a kids' film, it was pretty good. There was actually quite a bit of laugh-out-loud parts, and the voice talent was undoubtedly good. It also had a sweet message about being able to do whatever you put your mind to. Good movie for kids.

Rating: 3.5

Belle de jour (1967, France)

Only the French, I'm telling you. Catherine Deneuve, who I have to say is a very good actress, is a young woman who is in love with her new husband but frigid in bed. So while her husband is at work, she ends up spending her afternoons as a prostitute while staying chaste in her marriage.

Obviously this was supposed to be a commentary on women's desires and how psychological traumas can pervert these desires. Not a bad concept, but I think it could have been executed better. Then again, maybe it was just dated.

Rating: 2.5

Passengers (2008, U.S.)

So Anne Hathaway has never been my favorite, though I am quite fond of Patrick Wilson. I think Netflix might have recommended this one to me.

Claire is a therapist counseling the survivors of a plane crash. The survivors remember an explosion that the airline says didn't happen. When the passengers start disappearing, Claire is determined to find out what happened. She's helped by Eric, one of the survivors who she begins a romance with.

This was actually pretty good in terms of mystery and suspense, in a very slow-building, creepy way. I can't compare it to anything without giving the whole thing away, but let me just say your skin will be crawling by the end. Not bad!

Rating: 3.5

The History Boys (2006, UK)

In 1980s Yorkshire, a close-knit group of gifted boys works their way through school, sport, and sex, all trying to get into Oxford while enjoying their education. This film is a character study with an ensemble cast, which is pretty ambitious if you ask me. However, the group was very good, and you could really believe they really were a bunch of school boys who'd known each other forever. The group dynamic was fascinating, probably the best part of the film.

It was at times sad and at times funny, but it was always real. Triumphs, disappointments, and above all the ennui of the smartest, most charismatic guys you've ever seen trapped in a stifling, uncreative educational system. The only real support they get is from an aging teacher who sometimes touches his students inappropriately; the strangest thing is that he doesn't seem ill-intentioned, and they all like him anyway. Like I said, interesting characters.

Rating: 3.0

Gia (1998, U.S.)

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times. Angelina Jolie is brilliant. Here she played Gia Marie Carangi, a top fashion model from the late 1970s and early 1980s. I am not the kind of person who cares at all about fashion; I'm not the kind of person who condones drug use, wild behavior, or promiscuity; but I found myself really caring about Gia, her life, and her career. I don't know if it was Jolie or Gia or what, but her personality was larger than life. She didn't just come off the screen, she exploded off the screen.

The writing must have been very strong, because the pacing was very good for a biographical film. Gia wanted to live life to the fullest, but she didn't really get the love and support she needed, and she turned to drugs instead. The most powerful part of this film was the ending, when Carangi was in the hospital dying. (She died in 1986 at 26 of AIDS.) It was so vivid and heartbreaking, seeing this great celebrity languishing all alone.

This was an incredible film. The tone was dark. It had a gritty, realistic feel. And a 23-year-old Angelina Jolie was already in control of her incredible acting talent and absolutely breathtaking. Costumes were perfect. And from what I've read, it was pretty historically accurate too. All in all, a winner.

Rating: 4.0

The Count of Monte Cristo (2002, UK)

To be honest, I can't really write a good review of this film because I was halfway asleep (or maybe something else...) when I watched it.

However, I did really enjoy it. I've never read the book, but the film had a very good combination of history and adventure.

The thing I remember most clearly is the sets. The prison was especially well-done, I thought.

I think I better watch this one again!

Rating: 3.5

Legends of the Fall (1994, U.S.)

There just aren't enough movies made about World War I. It's a good thing that the ones that are made are quite good. Legends of the Fall is a bit melodramatic, but it is still a wonderful story. It mixes pieces of war movies, classic westerns, family sagas, and romances. If it comes off a bit melodramatic and times, that's okay. After all, it is a very ambitious film.

They used several very interesting narrative devices. To begin with, I liked that the narrator was a character who was only on the margins of the plot, rather than one of the primary players. To supplement this narration, they also used letters written to and from various characters, which was quite effective. They also used something I would call a flashback, for lack of a better term. To give an example, Tristan gets noticeably upset and frustrated when he tries to free a cow trapped in barb wire. Even though they never show the scene again, it is clearly meant to remind the viewer of the scene where his brother is trapped in barbed wire during the war. These scenes are very well done.

I've always found Aidan Quinn to be a competent but unremarkable actor, and most of the other actors fell into this same category as well. Then there's Anthony Hopkins and Brad Pitt. They steal the scene from anyone they ever work with. Hopkins is an imposing patriarch, and Pitt completely embodies the magnetic, troubled middle brother. Even if the film was awful (as it could have been if the rest was the same as the cheesy final scene), they'd redeem it. Wow.

Rating: 3.5

The Lucky Ones (2008, U.S.)

I stumbled across this movie when looking for Rachel McAdams projects. Apparently, it was pulled after only a one week limited release. I think this is an absolute tragedy, because this film is incredible.

Three soldiers have been wounded in Iraq. Two are coming home on a 30-day leave, and the third has finished his third (and last) tour of duty. They're stranded in New York because of a blackout and decide to drive cross-country to get to their final destinations.

The tagline says, "Sometimes losing your way home means finding yourself," and this captures the feel entirely. The three think they know what they're coming home to, but they don't. Colee (McAdams) is fascinated with the country, wanting to stop and sight-see everywhere she goes. This emphasizes her lack of a home. TK is worried about his ability to be sexually intimate after a groin injury, and he ends up finding emotional intimacy instead. And Cheaver has made great sacrifices for his country, but his greatest sacrifice is for his son. The various reactions of people they run into around the country—from the hero worship to the political anti-war comments to the cruelty of college girls mocking the wounded Army girl—are really an interesting representative sample of the real American sentiment, I think. Wonderful.

I've always found Tim Robbins to be a good actor, if not one with an overwhelming presence. I thought this was the case in this film, where his quiet, older nature didn't dominate the other two characters. The same can be said for Michael Peña, who is an actor with lots of unharnessed potential. He was one of my favorites in the ensamble of Crash, and he's just as great here. And of course, I adore Rachel McAdams. She is good in every role she takes, whether as a romantic lead or a solitary Iraq War veteran or a Mean Girl. Aside from being an incredibly talented actress, she has a beautiful face that looks vulnerable open and makes you want to stare into her eyes and memorize her face. Or maybe it's just me... I think I'd want to look like Rachel McAdams if I could look like anyone!

Anyway, I think this film is an amazing, amazing film about modern war. I liked Stop-Loss in its depiction of the effect the memory of war has on men's psyches. But I thought this was almost more poweful in its depiction of the effect of returning from a war to a home from which they've been long absent. It is really, really a shame that this had such a limited theatrical engagement. Everyone should see this film.

Rating: 4.0

Get Smart (2008, U.S.)

I've never seen the TV show Get Smart, so I can't really judge it as an adaptation. There were some funny parts that had a definite 1960s taste to them, and they actually carried over fairly well to the modern movie. I gather that a lot of the gadgets they used, such as the famous shoe phone, came straight from the series.

Steve Carell is terribly funny. Sometimes I really don't like the movies he's in, but when he's given a role that isn't in one of those lowbrow comedies, he's great. And he makes a wonderful Maxwell Smart. The rest of the cast was okay, but nothing spectacular. Anne Hathaway underwhelmed, as usual. (Especially disappointing, considering she does have great talent in there.)

The plot was a bit murky and hard to follow, but then considering it's a spoof of the espionage genre, perhaps that makes sense. All in all, a pretty entertaining flick. Not the best thing I ever saw, but still pretty good.

Rating: 3.0

The Valet / La Doublure (2006, France)

How very French. A wealthy man is cheating on his wife (a majority shareholder in his company) with a supermodel. A valet proposes to his girlfriend, and she says no. And then the wealthy man hires the valet to pretend to be with the supermodel, in order to fool the wife.

It was really rather entertaining, as only a comedy of errors—and a French film—can be. All of the characters are very well developed and continue to develop throughout the film. However the "happily ever after" just doesn't work out in a way that makes any sense, which rather killed the movie for me.

The score was composed by Alexandre Desplat, who is one of my favorite composers. Strangely, I believe this is the first French film I've seen that he's composed the score for. But it was truly wonderful. Very upbeat and great fun.

Also, I'm getting quite fond of Gad Elmaleh. I need to see some more of his work.

Rating: 3.0

Adam & Steve (2005, U.S.)

This really could have been a great movie. But it wasn't. Two guys meet each other in the 1980s and have a very unfortunate one night stand. They meet again 20 years later without recognizing each other and fall in love. They have to deal with all kinds of gay-bashing in addition to their complicated feelings for each other. Realizing that they met all those years ago only makes things worse.

There are a lot of the kind of jokes I don't like—fat jokes, bathroom-type jokes, and even some gay jokes, which is especially odd considering that the movie is seemingly pro-gay. I did like that they tried to make movie that portrayed gay marriage in such a positive way, but they just made it too lowbrow.

The absolute best, most wonderful thing about it was an extended scene where a bunch of gay men dressed up in jeans, flannel, and cowboy boots and hats and did an extended country western dance. Priceless.

Rating: 1.5

The Messengers (2007, U.S.)

This movie was shockingly identical to Cold Creek Manor. A family moves from the city (Chicago) to the country (a sunflower farm in North Dakota). They have a daughter (played by Kristen Stewart again) and a younger son. The house is creepy, and something is obviously not right. Then a handyman shows up, and their luck seems to be turning around.

The major difference was that this movie had a supernatural element that the other lacked... and it was awful. It was really creepy, but it was pretty predictable. They used crows pretty well, but at the same time this seemed like a pretty cliché horror tool.

The best part about this movie was Kristen Stewart, of course. She's great at the troubled teen who's made some mistakes but is a great big sister and an honest person. She is also great at acting terror.

Perhaps I would have liked it more if I hadn't just seen Cold Creek Manor. Or if the ending wasn't so cheesy. But too bad, I did, and it was.

Rating: 2.0

Penelope (2006, UK)

This was one of the stranger movies I've seen recently. Christina Ricci is Penelope, a girl whose family is cursed. Consequently, she has a pig snout. She needs to find someone of her own class (rich, of course) who loves her in order to break the curse, but every man who sees her runs screaming from the house. That is until she meets Max, who's lost his family inheritance and goes to meet her because a crooked newspaperman wants a story. Somehow he manages to never see her, and they form a bond. Things go sour, and Penelope runs away from home.

This is a really cute movie about falling in love for what's on the inside and finding yourself despite the interference of everyone in your life. Ricci is adorable—as is McAvoy. And I always, always love Catheine O'Hara as the neurotic mother. Reese Witherspoon, who produced this movie, also makes a brief appearance as a tough girl who befriends Penelope.

Really fun, really sweet. I think it would be a good movie for tweens.

Rating: 3.5

Baby on Board (2009, U.S.)

I have only ever seen one Heather Graham movie that I liked (Killing Me Softly—and that was largely thanks to Joseph Fiennes). This one might have been the absolute worst.

The concept was good. A perfume designer creates a perfume for pregnant women to smell sexy to their husbands. Meanwhile, she and her husband find themselves pregnant unexpectedly. Because of a miscommunication, he thinks she's cheated on him and it isn't his, and they don't talk for the duration of her pregnancy. A large part of this is due to his friend, who is a complete scumbag who cheats on his wife regularly and is exactly the kind of guy you instinctively hate.

Clearly, it's supposed to be funny. But men being stereotypical pigs, sex jokes, fat jokes, and other jokes in bad taste made it a horrible, horrible movie. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone.

Rating: 1.5

No One Can Hear You (2001, U.S.)

I decided to watch this movie because it featured Kieren Hutchinson, a Kiwi actor I've seen once or twice and found quite adorable. It also stars Barry Corbin, a truly iconic actor. Of course, I'm not big into horror, but I figured I'd branch out.

The first night I started to watch it, I had to turn it off. Living alone in a very dark area across from a cemetery is not so bad on a normal day, but horror movies are not a good addition to this scenario. The opening credits are the scariest part. They show someone's darkroom, red light and eerie photos everywhere, while someone whispers, "True love never dies" in a voice that truly makes your skin crawl.

The rest was not so scary. Essentially, a bunch of suburban families with teenage daughters kept being found dead all together, decapitated. It seems to echo a crime that happened 15 years earlier. The local news reporter's daughter fears she will be next. The filmmakers work so hard to make you believe the killer is one person that it's incredibly clear that it's someone else.

It amazes me that a movie can be so horribly written with a completely nonsensical plot and yet still be so incredibly predictable. Terrible.

Rating: 2.0

RocknRolla (2008, UK)

I don't know why I insist on continuing to watch British crime comedies when I rarely end up liking them. Oh way, yes I do. Snatch—Brad Pitt. Layer Cake—Daniel Craig. RocknRolla—Gerard Butler. I'm a sucker for those British men, even if the movie isn't my favorite genre.

I can see why people who like this type of film would like it. It had some pretty extreme shoot outs and disgusting intimations of violence (such as dipping people in pools of man-eating crawfish). There were also some pretty funny lines, but not really my kind of funny.

Mostly I spent the whole movie confused about who was doing what and why, and whose relationships were what and why... and, of course, how sexy Gerard Butler is, even as a gangster!

Even though I'm giving it the same rating as Snatch, I believe I liked it quite a bit more. The twist at the end was especially awesome.

Rating: 2.5

Cold Creek Manor (2003, U.S.)

I've become a huge Kristen Stewart fan recently, so I decided to try out this movie even though it's not my usual fare. I have to say, I was pretty impressed. This movie was creepy.

A couple and their two children move from Manhattan to upstate New York. They move into a house they bought at auction; the previous occupants had gone bankrupt. The father, a documentary filmmakers, begins working on a film about the previous occupants. But weird things start happening in the house. Snake infestations, a dead horse. It is terrifying, especially because you know who is responsible the entire time, yet the family remains clueless.

They send their children home to protect them, and as the suspense builds and it becomes clearer to them what's going on, my skin just kept crawling. The final confrontation is something else—although very cliché, as it occurs at night during a thunderstorm.

Sharon Stone and Dennis Quaid are very good actors, and the chemistry and marital tension between the two was great. And of course, Kristen Stewart was fabulous. Christopher Plummer was very convincing as an old, senile man. But it was Stephen Dorff, who I've never even heard of, who stole the show. He played very sketchy white trash to a T.

I wish I remembered the music more clearly, because I noticed later that the director also composed the score. Interesting.

Anyway, this is a great movie if you want to be super creeped out!

Rating: 3.5

Ring of the Nibelungs (2004, Germany)

This was definitely an interesting movie. It's based on the Norse myth that inspired Tolkien to write Lord of the Rings, apparently. (One notable difference, however, is that women play a much more prominent role in this film.)

There were some very interesting elements here. Star-crossed lovers, dragons, magical helms, deception, sword fights. It has some very dark, obviously Norse concepts. For instance, the hero slays a dragon and bathes in its blood, which makes him invincible in battle—at least everywhere the blood has touched.

I really liked it on one level. As I said, there were some very interesting elements, and it's just the kind of thing that Lord of the Rings fans or fans of Arthurian myth would enjoy. I really loved the music too. It opened with something that sounded almost like modern Scandinavian pop. Then it had a lot of beautiful slow songs and impressive epic songs. However, overall it was overly melodramatic in a lot of places (perhaps partially because of some overacting), and some plot points just didn't connect well.

It might be worth trying, if you're interested in this type of thing. Very neat, but overdone.

Rating: 2.5

Hook (1991, U.S.)

I am a huge Peter Pan fan. I like the old Mary Martin version, I like the Disney cartoon version, I like the 2003 version (with Jason Isaacs as Hook!), I like Finding Neverland... I just love Peter Pan. I've never seen Hook, however. (I remember something about it being inappropriate for children, and I wouldn't have been allowed to watch it.)

On one hand, I thought the concept of this film was pretty interesting. Peter Pan finds something worth leaving Neverland for, grows up, has his own children. On the other hand, I don't think that scenario is consistent with the Pan character. And even if it was, I don't think he ever would have become a high powered corporate executive. Because of this, none of the rest of the film fell into place.

I did love Maggie Smith as Granny Wendy, and the concept of her becoming a rescuer of orphans. She was great. However, I've never really cared for Robin Williams, and I didn't like his Pan. And while I do like Dustin Hoffman, he just isn't a hook, like Cyril Richards or Jason Isaacs. Lastly, the Lost Boys just aren't the loveable, adventurous, stereotypical boys they are in other versions, with the exception of one or two of them. Mostly they were a rude mass, rather than adorable individuals.

The last thing I wanted to mention was the music. The whole time, I kept thinking it sounded familiar. This is usually a good sign that I know the composer. However, when it sounds this familiar, it's usually a good sign that John Williams did the composing. Well, surprise surprise, he did! Which explains why it sometimes sounded like the mischievous music from Home Alone and sometimes like the more mystical themes from Star Wars. Still, it was pretty good music for Neverland. (Though nothing can touch the score written by James Newton Howard for the 2003 version.)

To summarize, my general reaction to this movie was "Eh." A swing and a miss for Spielberg, I'd say.

Rating: 2.5

Speak (2004, U.S.)

I feel like I am always saying this, but anyone who underestimates Kristen Stewart is an idiot. I have never seen this more clearly proven then watching this film, in which she plays a high school freshman who was raped. She can't speak about it, and becomes selectively mute. Meanwhile, her friends turn against her, her parents don't understand her, her teachers either pick on her or don't notice her.

The range of emotion Stewart portrays, from sheer joy with her friends, to terror, to emptiness, to courage, to a million other infinitesimally different ones, is beautiful. Her face is just incredibly expressive. It's just as interesting to watch her face as she walks down the street as to watch scenes where more action happens. I could rave about her performance forever.

The various devices the filmmakers use to tell the story are artfully employed. The mixed use of flashback and first person narration voiceover is very successful in painting a haunting picture of the mental condition of a traumatized girl. So too is the use of tree symbolism, although the whole "healing through art" thing is rather overdone in film, if you ask me. Lastly, the music was lovely and understated, setting just the right mood.

This film took a very painful subject and made it accessible to teenagers. It was heart-wrenching without being cliche. It was moving, especially because the main character was the perfect balance of fragile and strong.

I would strongly recommend this film. Especially if you want to see a 13-year-old with as much talent as a classically trained, middle-aged woman.

Rating: 4.0

Priceless / Hors de prix (2006, France)

This movie could not be more French. A professional mistress mistakes a hotel boy/bartender for a rich man, and all hell breaks loose. Before you know it. he's a professional "kept boy" (for lack of a better term). It is an absolutely charming combination of funny, sexy, and awkward. It was très fun.

Of course, I adore Audrey Tautou. This film gave her the opportunity to look downright sexy, as opposed to her usual adorable. Actually, the adorableness peeked through occasionally, and it worked perfectly for the film. The chemistry between her and Gad Elmaleh, who I really liked.

This is a great movie. If it was an American movie, it would be silly and trashy. As a French movie, it was frothy and fun. Great stuff.

Rating: 4.0

Lars and the Real Girl (2007, U.S.)

Morbid curiosity and an appreciation for the talent of Ryan Gosling made me watch this movie, and I was pleasantly surprised. Gosling is a fantastic, fantastic actor. His portrayal of a man in his late 20s with slight mental illness was brilliant. He used this squinting/blinking thing that somehow made his whole character and conveyed his imbalance very simply. (It reminded me of someone, but I can't think who.) Also, as a random note: I wish I could meet Ryan Gosling and have him read aloud to me. No matter his character, whenever he reads aloud, it is beautiful.

One other strange note. It seems like Emily Mortimer is pregnant in every movie she's ever in! She's often passionately arguing with her voice cracking. Though it's always the same, it is very convincing.

I really don't know how to describe the music. With its disjointed but lovely quality, it somehow conveys a childlike confusion and fear, but also an element hinting at struggling with very adult problems.

Should I give a brief synopsis? Basically, a lonely and maladjusted man orders a sex doll on the internet. Not for sex, but to create an ideal woman who he has a pure and loving relationship with. It is really remarkably original. Although it was marketed as such, it is not a comedy. It's actually a very moving portrait of mental illness, what our minds do to protect themselves, and how a family and community can band together to support someone who needs it.

I never thought I'd agree with Roger Ebert, and as much as it stuns me to say this, I can't say it better myself: "The film...wisely never goes for even one moment that could be interpreted as smutty or mocking...There are so many ways [it] could have gone wrong that one of the film's fascinations is how adroitly it sidesteps them. Its weapon is absolute sincerity...It has a kind of purity to it."

Rating: 3.5

The Time Traveler's Wife (2009, U.S.)

I say it every time, but it's impossible not to compare the movie to the book. I loved Audrey Niffenegger's book. A huge part of the book was character development, flashbacks, and overall complexity. The film was just a Cliffs Notes version.

Still, if taken alone, the movie was not bad. Firstly, the casting was perfect. Rachel McAdams was made to play parts like this. Beautiful, artistic, romantic. (Think Allie in The Notebook.) I was hesitant about Eric Bana, but he wasn't bad either. Even their chemistry was pretty good.

Although this was very, very abbreviated from the novel (which I think is destined to become a classic), I think I would have liked it a lot if I hadn't read the book. The acting was perfect, the concept was fascinating, the music was beautiful. One thing I did like more in the movie was the "watered down" ending. It was really the same, but with enough change to make it easier to stomach and more romantic.

I've essentially said a whole lot of nothing here. Basically, it wasn't the book, but it was good enough to make me sob a bit.

Rating: 3.5

(500) Days of Summer (2009, U.S.)

I have never been more wrong about how much I'll like a movie based on the preview. It was pretty awful. A sweet, adorable, wonderful guy falls in love with a stupid, horrible, shallow bitch. Errr, girl. This was reinforced by the fact that I've always loved JGL and disliked Zooey Deschanel.

There are some interesting elements, such as when JGL busts out into a cheerful song and dance in the middle of the street and everyone dances like it's Bollywood and cartoon birds fly around the air. It's priceless. They also attempted to use flashbacks to illustrate how Summer was never interested in Tom, and he was misreading the situation. The only problem was that it was already painfully obvious the first time the scene was played.

This is a case of a great idea with terrible execution.

Rating: 2.0

Julie & Julia (2009, U.S.)

Nora Ephron is the queen of women's interest classy comedy. Truly. Julia Child is a loud, opinionated, unusual American in France who wants to cook. And 50 years later, Julie Powell is a depressed, unfulfilled woman living in New York who decides to cook through Child's cookbook in a year. The only thing that makes this story better is the fact that it's true. Fascinating.

Meryl Streep and Amy Adams both have a comedic gift. Combined, it was almost too much. Hilarious. Their screen spouses also had great chemistry with them.

I also liked the way the two stories were blended together. They paralleled and complemented each other, but they could also stand alone quite easily.

Good comedy plus unique and engaging history is a neat combination. Combined with good acting, good sets, a good score (by Alexandre Desplat, one of my favorites!), and good scripting, it was really worth watching.

One little thing that bothered me was Julie finding out that Julia didn't like her blog. However, she drops that bomb and then it's never mentioned again. I just don't understand it, and it nearly ruined the ending for me. Still, I thought the last shot closed the movie exactly right.

Rating: 3.5

A Streetcar Named Desire (1951, U.S.)

I'm ashamed to say this, but I had absolutely no idea what A Streetcar Named Desire was about. And I have to take this opportunity to say how shameful it is the way all the DVD cases show a sexy looking Marlon Brando smoldering away. Aside from the fact that Brando is the complete opposite of sexy in this movie, he is also not the star.

Vivien Leigh as Blache DuBois was overwhelming. She was Blanch DuBois, that fragile, fading Southern lady/slightly loose/desperately lonely/mentally ill woman. Incredible. You can just feel yourself struggling to understand what's going on in her head, even though it was perfectly clear on her face—if your own mind was complex enough to comprehend. I really don't think anyone but Vivien Leigh could have played it. To be fair to Brando, he would have looked brilliant next to anyone else, but Leigh stole the show. However, he was also incredible as the scummy, crude, cruel, animalistic Stanley. The two together... Words cannot describe.

And really, that's all there is to say about it. A dark, well-written, literary play brought to the screen by the greatest director of the 1950s and two unparalleled actors with perfect photography. No wonder it's a classic.

Rating: 4.0

Anna Karenina (1948, UK)

I've heard that this is perhaps the worst version of Anna Karenina ever filmed, and I can perhaps see why. A lot of the dialogue was rather stilted and badly written. Karenin didn't really seem concerned with his wife's affair. The chemistry between Anna and Count Vronsky was so nonexistent that you couldn't understand what they even saw in each other.

I don't think it will surprise anyone to know what I thought was the key redeeming element in this film—Vivien Leigh. I loved her since the first time I saw her in Gone with the Wind. It is still one of my favorites, as is Waterloo Bridge (a very under-recognized film). Even though her chemistry with Moore was terrible, she acted brilliantly and dragged the film along on the hem of her elegant wardrobe. (She did, of course, look stunning.) While you never see why she loves Vronsky, her acting lets you see how torn up she becomes because of their relationship. You also see her deep and abiding love for her son, which is an especial feat of acting, in my opinion, considering that Leigh was not the best mother by all accounts.

It is really unfortunate that we can't go back in time and refilm this, keeping the leading lady and giving her the costars and direction she deserved.

Rating: 3.0

Bride and Prejudice (2004, UK)

I never felt the urge to watch this movie, but sometimes you have to do things that make your friends happy. Well, this film did not make me very happy. To be fair, I have to say that I will never see anyone but Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy. (I even refuse to see the 2005 version, much to many people's consternation.)

I will say a few good things about it. Mostly, I loved the Bollywood aspect. When people just randomly broke into choreographed song and dance in the middle of the street or a party, it was awesome. Especially when Naveen Andrews was involved, and looking so sexy.

Otherwise, it was pretty dumb. There was no chemistry between the actors, bad acting (I know one of my friends loves Martin Henderson, but please), bad writing... Miss Austen would not be pleased. Just say no.

Rating: 2.5

The Business of Fancydancing (2002, U.S.)

I really liked The Business of Fancydancing more than Smoke Signals. To begin with, I thought the theme was much more complex. It was about belonging and identity—tribal, racial, sexual, and family- and employment-related. It was about life and death. It was about how hard it can be to come home.

Perhaps the best part of the film was how multiple styles and viewpoints and time frames were woven together so uniquely. Alexie also incorporated snippets of his poetry (masquerading as the main character's poetry, of course) in between scenes, which I found very effective.

The acting was also incredible. Evan Adams, who played Thomas Builds-the-Fire in Smoke Signals, played a very, very different character in this film. His range is amazing. All of the supporting players were also great, especially Gene Tagaban, who played Aristotle. Strangely, this is his only film, although he is a storyteller and performer by trade. He conveys raw emotion as if it truly belongs to him, and not to the character written on the page. And if I may interject an irrelevant comment, he has beautiful hair.

And of course, the shots of eastern Washington, the reservation, and Seattle were all beautiful.

Rating: 4.0

The Ugly Truth (2009, U.S.)

Wow. So this was supposed to come out in April, and I was really disappointed when it didn't. I figured they pushed back the release date to get a new rating. Boy, was I wrong.

I have never seen a movie so full of misogynistic and overly-sexualized jokes. It often bordered on tasteless, but it remained quite funny. It definitely walked a fine line. Even though it might have been a bit much for a "romantic comedy," it was also a breath of fresh air because it was just so different. Let me recommend not watching it if you're very easily offended. (I can be offended fairly easily, and I was *this close* to offense every now and then.) But for most people out there, it's hilarious and I think you'll love it.

Gerard Butler is a b-e-a-utiful man. I'm a little bit biased in his favor, but I can still say that he is an amazing actor, and he was shockingly believeable as a rude, chauvanistic pig. I've never seen him play anything quite like it (although he has done some out there roles). (Side note: he's looking a bit odd these days, like he's gained a lot of weight but just in his face. Well, more like he's been stung repeatedly in the face by bees. Anyway.) Here I go with my bias again, but Katherine Heigl was Katherine Heigl. Really, I do not understand the appeal. She plays the same silly, 2-dimensional, whiny, anorexic little girl in everything. You don't understand why the leading man, even one as shallow as the lead in this flick, would want to be with her. Casting could have been way better on that front.

And then they live conveniently-ever-after. Really, I liked it—but what more is there to say about a romantic comedy?

Rating: 3.5

Watchmen (2009, U.S.)

I finally saw Watchmen. Seemed like one of those things that you have to see. I'm not a graphic novel reader, because I always find myself having read to the end of the page and not looking at the pictures—therefore I have no idea what's going on. (Though usually I enjoy the film adaptations.) And that's kind of how I felt watching this movie. It was all tangled up, and I'm still not sure I know what happened and why. Also, I thought it was incredibly slow-paced for an action movie; it almost bordered on boring.

But even though it was not my favorite movie of all time, it did have some great points. For instance the music was... wow. They used the most unusual songs in the most unusual places. It was bizarre, and sometimes jarring, but somehow it worked. The ones that stick out in my mind are The "Sound of Silence," "99 Luftballoons," and something that sounded incredibly like Mozart's "Requiem in D Minor" (and I think that's what it was). Very interesting. The score that was composed for the film was obviously designed to blend rather than stand out, as the rest of the music did, but it was well done also.

Of course, thanks to the graphic novel origins, the visuals were fascinating. The use of extreme geographies, from Mars to Antarctica to a dark and filthy city provided interesting contrast. Also, Dr. Manhattan's glowing blueness was just as mesmerising as Rorschach's gritty and ever-changing mask. Those two characters were definitely the most interesting. I don't know if that's just because of who they were or because they were the two who got a lot of deep, rambling narration.

And in that vein, the casting was quite wonderful. Jackie Earle Haley, who I'd never heard of, was especially fantastic as Rorschach. With or without his mask, he was creepy and disturbing and yet oddly easy to relate to. Simply amazing.

That's about all I've got. I do want to make one comment about how annoyed I get with superhero girls and their long hair flying all over the place. Really, it would get in the way, and they would not be able to fight crime that way. I'm just saying.

So, rating. As I said, it had some fabulous elements, from music to acting to cinematography. But the plot was just too hard for me to follow and the film felt way too long. Balancing out, that earns it an "okay."

Rating: 3.0