The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl (2005, U.S.)

I had to do it. Cute little Taylor Lautner! But I have to say, if I was a kid or had kids, I would really like this one.

The characters are really good. The main character is just an average boy with an extraordinary imagination. The heroes aren't the most heroic; they have flaws. Lavagirl is clumsy and Sharkboy alternates between tough, vulnerable, funny and a smartass. (He's even part animal... Jacob Black much?) So adorable.

The characters, adventures, and scenery seemed to come right out of a kid's mind (which in fact it did—it came from the mind of the director's son). I bet it looked really awesome in 3-D.

I can't decide whether to call a lot of the jokes cheesy or corny, because there was definitely a lot of food involved in the scenery especially. Either way, it was fun. And I loved the bad puns, especially the ones from Mr. Electric, the villain (aka Mr. Electricidad, the teacher).

In addition to all the fun and adventure, there was a good message to kids about keeping their dreams and making the important ones into reality. Sweet little movie, good for boys and girls.

Rating: 3.5

Post Grad (2009, U.S.)

This was a cute little movie. Alexis Bledel is a girl who has just graduated with an English degree and wants to get her dream job at her dream publishing house. She doesn't, and she has to deal with unemployment. Meanwhile, her best friend is in love with her and she starts fooling around with her much older Brazilian neighbor. So she loses her friend, another important thing in her life.

I thought it was both laugh-out-loud funny and touching. Michael Keaton as her father and Carol Burnett as her grandmother were especially hilarious. Without the comedy and the romance, her post grad life felt like a mix of my post-college and post-grad school experiences, which is probably part of why I liked it so much. I think any college graduate can relate.

Not many comedies can impress upon the viewer the important things in life—family, love, hard work, being happy with who you are and what you do. All that and a few laughs too. Good stuff.

Rating: 4.0

The Runaways (2010, U.S.)

Color me surprised. I didn't know anything about The Runaways and I've never really liked late '70s/'80s music, but I was curious to see Kristen Stewart in this one. I already thought she was an underrated and quite brilliant actress, but this one really convinced me. I love how she is so unafraid to look ridiculous, wearing silly clothes, rocking the ugliest hairdo, and singing like a fool. And wow, she was Joan Jett. The even bigger surprise was that Dakota Fanning, who I've absolutely loathed in the past, was almost as good as Cherie Currie. Between the two of them and the rest of the cast, there was a great dynamic that lent an excellent sense of realism to the film.

Costumes and makeup were stellar. I was investigating The Runaways' website and some of the costumes matched their tour pictures to a tee. Sets, script, everything made the period come alive.

This was a fascinating biopic that made me enjoy music that I'd never liked and taught me something that I never knew and entertained me all at once. That is a successful film if I ever heard of one. I'd love to see it again. A real cherry bomb!

Rating: 4.0

Death at a Funeral (2007, UK)

This one was different from the opening credits. I absolutely adored the score, which was fun and familiar sounding. It was cheerful and upbeat, yet slightly ominous at the same time.

Death at a Funeral is very British and an interesting ensemble drama. When a large family gathers for a funeral, there are all kind of interesting dynamics going on, from fighting couples to competing brothers to love triangles to hidden secrets that cause all kinds of trouble.

You'll laugh out loud, you might tear up a little, and your jaw will definitely drop multiple times. See it to believe it!

Also, I love Alan Tudyk. Love him.

Rating: 3.5

Salt (2010, U.S.)

I never thought I would see the day that I agreed with Roger Ebert, but I think it has come. He gave it four out of four stars, saying that "It's gloriously absurd. This movie has holes in it big enough to drive the whole movie through." Amen. It's like a super cheesy and preposterous 1950s spy film but with the realism that comes from modern day film techniques, and this is a very disconcerting combination. You could almost say it was so ridiculous it was good.

A lot of the plot devices lacked clarity, but I can't go into without giving away the ending. I did figure out one plot twist thanks to an episode of Lost, which was kind of fun for me.

Of course, I love Angelina Jolie more than anyone else I know. She makes an excellent action hero (see Tomb Raider). Apparently she's been wanting to do a spy franchise, and I wish this had a better script so they could make a franchise out of it. I do have to say thank goodness Tom Cruise dropped out, because this movie would have been ten kinds of awful with him instead of her.

Besides Jolie, the three best parts were the action, the setting, and the music. A lot of the action was based on Salt running and running and running from her pursuers, rather than explosions and shooting (though there was a good share of that too). The filming took place primarily in D.C. and was really well done. And the score (by one of my favorite composers) was perfect. If I had listened to it without the movie, I would have said to myself, "This would make good spy music!"

Don't expect much, and you'll be entertained. Especially if you like Angelina Jolie.

Rating: 3.5

Little Children (2006, U.S.)

Kate Winslet is one of the greatest actresses of her generation, if not all time. And Patrick Wilson is great when the psychologically disturbing and dramatic stuff (see Hard Candy). So a film with such a small cast that revolves around the two of them is sure to be a winner.

In an upper-middle class suburb, the lives of a woman with a porn-addicted husband, a man with a disinterested wife, a disgraced ex-cop, and a convicted sex offender dance around each other. It's hard to tell how they'll align (despite the common neighborhood), but eventually all runs together.

I guess this is supposed to be a film about people who can't control their impulses, but to me it seemed more like a film about people who are trapped in unhappy lives and deal with them in inappropriate ways.

It was sad watching these people pathetically run their lives into the ground. And while it was a powerful film, I think it was just too bleak for me. Still, definitely worth watching.

Rating: 3.5

Inception (2010, U.S.)

I don't even know what to say about this one. I had to make a conscious effort to relax my brow at the end of the film because I was doing some intense thinking the entire time. It is one of the most confusing things I have ever watched. There were essentially four stories nested within each other, plus side plots as flashbacks and goodness knows what else.

The basic premise is that a team is going to make a lot of money by placing an idea into a man's head. To do this, they have to approach him in a dream within a dream, thereby penetrating his subconscious as much as possible. The lead, played by DiCaprio, is slightly broken—mentally because he's gone into the dream world one too many times and emotionally because of what happened to his wife. He's a great actor, and he's complimented by a lot of other great actors. Joseph Gordon Levitt is a personal favorite of mine, and the rest of the cast was strong.

Two of the most important parts of science fiction are the world building and convincing science, and both were wonderful. It's one of those things that has to be seen, not explained, however. In fact, I probably need to see it again so I can remind myself what happened.

There were a couple of inconsistencies, but if you like a good thinker, this is definitely one for you.

Rating: 4.0

The Escapist (2008, UK)

This was a great cerebral drama. It's hard to elaborate on the best points without giving away the ending, but suffice is to say that a lot of the elements that don't feel quite right suddenly make way too much sense in the end.

Frank Perry is more than 10 years into a life sentence without parole, and he decides to escape when his estranged daughter becomes ill. He gets a group of cons together and they arrange an escape. After they leave the prison, the rest of the film takes place in the tunnels, sewers, and underground rivers of subterranean London.

The acting is phenomenal, of course. I've never been a huge fan of Brian Cox, but he was pretty great as Frank Perry. Dominic Cooper is strong as the sexually abused young new con, and Joseph Fiennes is, as always, one of the best actors of all time.

Most of the action seemed to be shot with a hand-held camera, and it made it feel like it was a first-person account of the breakout.

I expected a twist at the end, but I couldn't quite put my finger on what pieces weren't lining up. When the twist came, I was floored. It was one of those endings that made the whole film incredible. Good stuff.

Rating: 4.0

Toy Story 3 (2010, U.S.)

This was the first ever movie I've seen in 3-D. I don't know if I really liked that aspect of it. Mostly it just gave me a headache.

The movie, on the other hand, was great. I didn't think they'd be able to pull another story out of these characters, but they did. Andy's heading off to college and getting rid of his toys; the gang is donated to daycare, and it's a living hell.

Two big highlights were Buzz being set to Spanish-language Buzz, Barbie meeting (a very clothes-obsessed and shallow) Ken, and the aliens from the claw machine following around the Potato Heads ("You have saved our lives, we are eternally grateful!").

I was kind of back and forth about the ending. On one hand it was sweet and on the other hand it was way too sad and disappointing. Overall, it was the mix of funny and touching you'd expect from a Toy Story movie.

Rating: 4.0

Shutter Island (2010, U.S.)

Much better than the last film I saw that was based on a Dennis Lehane novel. DiCaprio plays Teddy Daniels, a U.S. Marshal who goes to a federal penitentiary for the mentally insane on a tiny island in Boston Harbor. With his partner, his mission is to find an escaped and highly dangerous prisoner. However, the doctors and administrators on the island are less than helpful, hurricane-type weather blows in, and Daniels is plagued by hallucinations/dreams of his deceased wife and experiences during World War II.

This is the kind of slowly building suspense that is all about creepy atmosphere and psychological drama, and it was very well executed. DiCaprio is a stellar actor, of course, and he definitely carried the movie. When it comes time for the big plot twist at the end and the memorable last line, he nails it.

Scorsese made a very interesting choice, and instead of having the film scored, he used a collection of instrumental classics. It worked perfectly. Some of the songs were beautiful, but the best one were creepy and frighteningly suspenseful. They did an especially effective job when Teddy and his partner first drive through the gates of the compound. It made me want to shout, "Turn around, don't go in there!"

You'd have to see this one to believe it. I just can't say much without giving away the ending. Which, I think, is a pretty good recommendation for the film.

Rating: 3.5

Gamer (2009, U.S.)

Wow.

In a dystopian future, people play an online game called "Society" )like the Sims) where they control real people in a not-so-virtual world. These actors are paid to "work" in this game. Then the game creator, Castle, gets another idea, creating a modern warfare game where the game's "characters" are cons from death row in America's overcrowded prisons. It is intense. Gerard Butler plays a con who was set up for murder and has survived 20-odd "missions" in the game. (If they survive 30, they're pardoned.) Logan Lerman is the 17-year-old gamer controlling him. Ludacris heads a subversive group called Humanz who are trying to expose the evil of Castle's empire.

It is intense, action-packed, thought-provoking. It offers some interesting commentary on modern society, thinly disguised by a horrible future. Of course, at what point does commentary on society's obsession with gaming, sex, and violence just become a vehicle for gratuitous gaming, sex, and violence? It's kind of a fine line, and they toe it here, but I think it works. Because once you finish watching this, you'll start thinking about those things, but then you'll think, "Well bad me for liking this movie so much!" At least that's the feeling I got.

Sometimes it was a bit over the top (i.e. when Kable vomits whiskey into a gas tank and then urinates into it as well, which somehow makes the car work), but for the most part it was excellent, from the science to the action to the satire to the very last plot twist. I was pretty surprised (having only watched this in a quest to find the pre-chick flick Butler), but I really liked it and would pretty strongly recommend it.

Rating: 4.0

The Last Station (2009, UK)

It's really hard to explain what this film is "about." Basically it follows the last days of Leo Tolstoy's life, his relationship with his wife, and his relationship with his closest friends and advisers. He's torn between revolutionary ideals and taking care of his family's needs.

Using Tolstoy's secretary (played by a very talented James McAvoy) and his relationship with a fellow revolutionary as a sort of contrast to the relationship of the aging Tolstoy and his long-time wife is very effective.

With a cast of very talented actors, a unique historical story, and a realistic period feel, this was an enjoyable film.

Rating: 3.5

Män som hatar kvinnor ( 2009, Sweden)

There's nothing like seeing a film based on a novel starring a bunch of actors you don't know to let you appreciate the quality of the adaptation. This was a great film, and I'm glad I was able to see the Swedish adaptation before the American adaption comes out. (My guess is that this version will be the better one since it wasn't Hollywood-ed up, even if Daniel Craig is going to play Blomkvist in the American movie.)

The casting was pretty near perfect, at least for the two characters who mattered. (The rest I could take or leave.) Blomkvist was a middle aged but sort of ruggedly handsome go-getter type, and Salander was teeny and angry and very punk, with the haircut to match.

It's interesting how something so graphic and violent and awful (i.e. rape, murder, etc.) can seem less so when you read it (and frankly lack the imagination to picture something so horrible) and yet even when they tone it down for a film, it seems ten times as ugly. They definitely kept the bleak tone of the novel, and even the Swedish landscape added to the feel.

One thing that I really missed was the depth of the characters. Larsson had an almost overzealous narrative, rambling about things that seem pretty irrelevant to the plot. That's something that just can't carry over into film. Still, they didn't do an awful job converting it, and otherwise, everything that was good about the book was good about the movie. Suspenseful, complex, character-driven mystery. Wonderful.

Rating: 4.0

Eclipse (2010, U.S.)

Okay, this was probably the most successfully executed of the three films so far. It was on the level with New Moon in terms of treating it as a serious film. (On the other hand, I do have a special place in my heart for the first film. It was incredibly stupid in parts but in a funny way, and it is still my favorite of the books.) Anyway.

I was a little iffy on a lot of the costuming and makeup. For instance, why does Emmett's hair look like he's wearing a black skull cap plastered to his head? Why does super-blonde Rosalie have scary jet-black eyebrows? Why does sweet Esme with her sweet brown hair suddenly have severe black hair? Not good. At least Edward's hair has settled into a sexy but disheveled style that suits his face... but what happened to the bronze color? And I'm also glad that they stayed consistent with Bella, a low-key, long-haired, tomboyish beauty. Her costumes were the best. I also liked the new costumes for the Volturi. Their hoods were much less cheesy and much more natural looking. Edward's sense of style seems to have been downgraded (unfortunately), the Cullens now fight battles in strange matching black, and Charlie's last name is misspelled on his uniform. But besides that...

The special effects also win a prize this time. The wolves still look great, and I think they've finally managed to capture the speed (if not quite the grace) of vampires in motion. There are several scenes where the Cullens are running through the woods, and you can just see the trees whipping by them and the Cullens next touching them. It's amazing. And then the fight scenes are just unbelievable. That is when their grace and power really show. The vampire death has come a long way since James too. Not of that using chicken/cheese to stand in for a ripped-out throat, no doll's head popping off and tumbling into a fire. Instead, there was rending and creaking like nails on a chalkboard, vampires breaking like the cold, hard things they are. A little of that showed in Edward's fight with Felix in Volturra in the last film, but this film really took it to the next level. Wonderful. To add to the look of the film, there were several breathtakingly beautiful flyover shots of the Pacific Northwest that gave the feeling of grand scale and epic events taking place. A nice touch.

I think the writing was pretty decent too. As always, there were some good one-liners, some from Charlie, some from the boys. My favorites were "Doesn't he own a shirt" from Edward about Jacob and "Well I am hotter than you" from Jacob to Edward. Even Jasper got a couple of good lines. The interaction between various characters is realistic and well done, in my opinion, and that's partly writing and partly acting. For instance, Charlie and Bella have the best father-daughter on-screen relationship I think I've ever seen. (Billy Burke is awesome.) Jacob and Edward's rivalry and contrasting loves for Bella come alive too. And the chemistry between Jacob and Bella and Edward and Bella is phenomenal. You can see the tension in relationship with Jacob. They're best friends, he loves her more than she loves him, it's hard for both of them... And then Edward and Bella have a multitude of "moments" in this film. It really is like a drug addiction (to use Edward's metaphor), and they share several achingly tender kisses over the course of the movie that are just delicious.

I have to say that Lautner and Pattinson can act. Lautner's Jacob is gruff but funny but hurting and still a smartass, while Pattinson uses these subtle facial expressions as Edward when he's amused or hurt or angry, and it's like he is feeling so much but trying to keep it from his face and just barely not succeeding. Good stuff. Also, I still hate Dakota Fanning, and Jane is supposed to be a hate-able character, so good work there! The re-casting of Victoria was probably the most unfortunate part, because the new actress has this cute kitten-y look rather than the tough, tigress-type look of the earlier actress. And the whole point of her army is revenge for a dead lover, yet we never saw this actress with James and even though you know she's supposed to be the same, she just doesn't feel the same. if that makes sense. As I said, very unfortunate.

Overall, I liked this as a book adaptation. I would only complain about a couple of things. First, the lack of a preface. Both of the previous movies made use of the novels' prefaces, but this one didn't. Instead, we had a scene about Riley becoming a vampire. (More on that in a second.) At least they did have Bella read the poem that prefaces the preface of Eclipse, Frost's "Fire and Ice," as if she's studying for an English final. The problem with the first scene they used in the film (and subsequent scenes featuring Riley and the newborns) is that it takes away from the element of fear and surprise when the Cullens aren't sure who's coming or why (in the novel). Instead, the viewer knows what's coming and why, and that takes some of the fun out of it. (Until the newborns come rising out of the water like the undead pirates in POTC, and then it is a bit funny... just not in the good way.) Arguably this is stuff you learn in The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner, but I don't think it was meant to be known in the context of Eclipse, which is told from Bella's viewpoint. And Bella doesn't know what's going on in Seattle, which makes this a bit of a slip in narrative person.

Lastly, as always, music. I liked the score. I'm not sure whether I liked the Eclipse or New Moon score better, though I have to say the score was used better in New Moon. They didn't use the soundtrack very effectively in this film either. In that category, Twilight wins for best use of soundtrack. Howard Shore's score, unsurpisingly, is beautiful, but they could have showcased it to greater effect. He did a neat trick by using some strains from "Eclipse (All Yours)" into a few of his songs, which tied things together neatly. Speaking of that song, it was used in the credits and was absolutely perfect for the tone and subject of the movie. Who should Bella love, what life should she lead? One scene where the music really stuck out was "Rolling in on a Burning Tire" during a close up of Riley and Victoria prepping for battle, and it was tough and perfect for the tone. I also liked the use of "Ours," with the repeating lyrics "this time is ours" during the graduation party. Very fitting. But then the party soundtrack follows with Muse's "Neutron Star Collision," a song written just for this film. A great song, and it was given all of 10 seconds of background music time? Really sad about that. Other songs from the soundtrack, which were quite good, I never heard in the film at all. Come on people. You have a strong soundtrack and the brilliant Howard Shore composing your score, so use it!

Otherwise, good filmmaking here.

Rating: 4.5

Serious Moonlight (2009, U.S.)

What an unfortunate movie. I'll just put it out there—I hate Meg Ryan. But my mom wanted to watch this one, so I did. A woman finds out her husband is cheating and planning to leave her, so she does the only sensible thing and duct tapes him to the toilet, telling him she'll let him go only when he loves her again.

It's an interesting concept with only four main characters, but it's like the filmmakers couldn't decided to make it a comedy or a psychological drama, and the combination just leaves an unsettled, unsatisfied feeling. If they hadn't tried so hard or had decided what they were trying to do, it could have been good or even amazing, but it wasn't. Combined with bad acting, it just wasn't great. I did keep in mind that the writer (and probably planned director) was murdered before the film could be made, so maybe she could have made it better, like by not casting Meg Ryan. (She was the one behind Waitress, which was quite good.)

Bottom line, I wouldn't recommend it. Unless you want to make your mother happy.

Rating: 2.5