Breaking Dawn, Part 1 (2011, U.S.)

This movie is an excellent example of how low expectations can really improve one's enjoyment of a movie! I knew from the second that I read "the scene" in Breaking Dawn that the movie was going to end up being a cheesy B horror film, for at least five minutes. Then I kept hearing bad reviews of the movie, and I said to myself, "Well, duh." But really, it wasn't that bad.

To begin with, the wedding was beautiful. It wasn't quite how I pictured it in my head, but I liked their interpretation. Bella's dress was stunning, in my opinion, and Kristen Stewart looked incredibly beautiful. I loved how they reused their prom song for the wedding background music. I loved how everyone else literally disappeared from the scene while they were getting married, showing how they were the whole world to each other. I really loved their wedding kiss, which was long without being R-rated, sweet, romantic, and so laced with meaning. Oh it was just beautiful!

Visually, it was very well done too. I already mentioned the wedding. There were a lot of beautiful establishing shots of the island, Washington forests, the waterfall where they swim, Rio (the giant Jesus!), and the like. I loved the use of montages, namely the island time one and the Renesmee one. The one on the island showed them hiking, playing chess, swimming, talking, and just being together, and I thought it perfectly crystallized and captured that honeymoon feeling and their connection. Hard to explain. (Also, I loved their use of the red and white chess pieces from the front of the book. That was pretty clever, and I don't think they've done that since the first movie... not that a ribbon and a rose petal are easy to incorporate.) The shots of teenaged Renesmee were very dreamlike and actually made me want to like her, which is quite an accomplishment—I really kind of hated her in the book. Bella's dream the night before the wedding was really well done, but something makes me not want to go into detail and give it away. The honeymoon love scene was close to perfect. I figured they would go the book route and just "fade to black" and wake up in the morning with feathers flying (which didn't get left out, yay!), but they actually showed it. It was tasteful and beautiful and it definitely looked like soul mates being together for the first time. That was one of many scenes that was quite moving. One other visual aspect I was impressed with was the makeup on "sick" Bella. Until now, most of their makeup has involved making humans look like pale vampires with golden/red eyes and beautiful looks. Bella's transformation into a ravaged, hollow-eyed, broken girl was pretty incredible, especially in contrast. (On the other hand, I was less impressed with vampire makeup. Carlisle's hair looked greasy, Rosalie's nasty black eyebrows continue to irritate me, Alice isn't as cute without spiky hair, and Irina's—yay, Maggie Grace!— eyes didn't look like the contacts were set quite right, to give a few examples.) Anyway, I think this might have been the most visually appealing of the movies so far.

So what was wrong with it? I'll start with the obvious. The birth scene. No. Still, it could have been a lot worse. In fact, I thought Bella's broken bones, especially the spine, were quite underdone. There was no fountain of blood at the birth, which you might consider underdone but that actually made the scene fit better. (There was still chewing, but you can't see it, so again that really helped. The whole scene was not the B movie bloodbath I had anticipated, which was the biggest relief ever.) The effects of the venom injection are shown though a sort of CGI vein interior, which was sort of cheesy and reminded me of a Magic School Bus episode. On the other hand, I'm not quite sure how they would have accomplished this otherwise, because they don't have the benefit of Bella's Ernaline monologues like the book has. Also on the subject of point of view, I thought that losing Jacob's perspective during the pregnancy was a loss for the movie, which is ironic since I didn't like that narrative choice in the book. (You have to admit that it's weird for the first 3 books and 2/3 of the fourth book to be told from one perspective and then 1/3 of the last book to be told from another.) I missed the scenes of Jacob trying to imprint and his snarky comments and his anger at Edward, Bella, "Blondie," and just about everyone else in the world. It took a lot of emotion away. Also on the subject of werewolves, the pack has a big meeting where they do their talking in each other's heads thing, and it was really stupid. Their voices were sort of edited to sound all echo-y and more raspy and just fake in general, and I thought that scene in particular (or any scene with inner wolf conversations in general) would have been a lot less ridiculous and more effective if they just used normal voices.

On the subject of actors, poor Billy Burke didn't have as many funny moments as previous movies, which was sad. On the other hand, Pattinson and Stewart's chemistry was off the charts. The way they oriented around each other in scenes (as Bella's mom notes in the previous movie), the way they look at each other, the love scene, the wedding kiss, the chess matches... I swear their connection was palpable. Rather breathtaking, really. As for everyone else, they were basically standards and really irrelevant to the story. I would have liked more from Taylor Lautner, but I felt the fault was not his but the scripts. He did do a lot with his body language to convey emotion he was never able to vocalize.

Probably the most disappointing thing was the music. The score wasn't bad, and the soundtrack might not have been either, but I didn't think it was used to the same effect as earlier soundtracks. (Can anyone think of baseball anymore without hearing "Supermassive Black Hole" in their head? I can't!) The music may have been good, but it just didn't stand out. The one exception was, as I mentioned before, the reuse of "Flightless Bird, American Mouth," which gave the movies and the characters' relationship an agreeable symmetry.

So overall, I quite liked it. That may be mostly because my expectations were so low, but hey... I'll take what I can get!

Rating: 4.0

Midnight in Paris (2011, U.S.)

 Has it really been almost three and a half years since Woody Allen finally made me start my film blog? And again I say, "Good ending, Woody Allen!"

But to begin with, perhaps I should tell him "Good beginning!" instead. The first several minutes of the film are comprised entirely of scenes from Paris, both tourist destinations like the Eiffel Tower and local hangouts like street cafes. It was beautiful, it really set the scene by introducing Paris as its own character, and it made me think repeatedly, "I've been there!" It was a nice little trip, and all this before the credits began to roll.

To begin with the concept: I loved it! It's a bit like The Polar Express. Gil, who has escaped from his fiancee Inez and her parents, is wandering the city when, at the stroke of midnight, an old fashioned car pulls up as if the meeting was predetermined. Soon he's wandering the much livelier streets of a Paris that has been gone for 90 years, meeting his idols and letting his inner self blossom. How many of us long to retreat to an earlier time, one that we hold in our imaginations as a Golden Age? For Gil, it's Paris in the 1920s. For Adriana, who he meets in the '20s, it's la Belle Epoque. As Gil says, "That's what the present is. It's a little unsatisfying because life is unsatisfying." His whole journey of self-discovery is colorful and humorous but also beautiful, and it is oh-so-Woody-Allen.

The casting was excellent, although I felt a little backwards regarding the leads. Normally I love Rachel McAdams, and she was very good in this movie. The only problem was that usually she's sweet and loveable or savvy and spunky. Here, her character was a shallow, annoying socialite. On the other hand, I'm not a huge fan of Owen Wilson (I much prefer his brother), usually finding him to be quite annoying. In this case, he was the loveable one. Strange to get used to that big trade-off. He was good, but the remainder of the ensemble cast was stellar. In the modern world, Michael Sheen as Inez's irritating, superior friend Paul was spot-on. French first lady Carla Bruni as a museum guide was understated. In the 1920s, I adored Alison Pill as Zelda Fitzgerald (the more movies I see her in, the more I like her). Tom Hiddleston as F. Scott was a good counterpart. Corey Stoll was an incredible Hemingway; to be honest, I had to remind myself that he was an actor and not the author several times. Kathy Bates was perfect as the outspoken Gertrude Stein (think Molly Brown toned down about 20 notches). Adrien Brody, one of the most underrated actors in the world I think, was a wonderfully vibrant Salvador Dalí. "Rhinoceros!" (Much different from Pattinson's portrayal in Little Ashes, but equally believable.) I was pleased to see Gad Elmaleh in a non-French (language/country of origin) film, because he has a great range of expressions (which may come from having a mime for a father) that lend themselves to brilliant comedy and worked very well as the detective here. And of course the lovely Marion Cotillard is always a classy, sexy, talented addition to any cast, especially a period piece.

I don't know quite how to describe my feeling watching this film other than to use the word "transported." It was really wonderful, thought-provoking, amusing. I would recommend it to anyone, but especially to those with a love of Paris or early 20th century art/culture, or a nostalgic longing for any bygone time.

Rating: 4.0

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011, U.S.)

I just don't know what to say about this one, so I won't say much. I think the whole thing is just tired. I loved the first one when it came out (so much that I saw it 8 times in the theater before buying it on DVD the day it came out). I really liked the second and third ones (when nobody else seemed to), though I thought they should stand alone more like the first one did. Now somehow, I was really disappointed by POTC4, while every other review I've read seems to call it as good as the first one or even the best of the four. What?!

Change is good, and their stories were definitely complete, but that didn't stop me from missing Will and Elizabeth. Instead, Penelope Cruz appears as a former flame of Jack's. Now normally she irritates me to no end, but I thought she was actually pretty good in this movie and even had believable chemistry with Depp (who, I doubt I have to tell you, was just as awesome as ever). But then we have her father Blackbeard, played by Ian McShane. They keep talking about how evil he was, but I just didn't see it. He definitely wasn't as evil as Davy Jones, he wasn't as evil as Cutler Beckett. Heck, he wasn't as evil as Barbossa was in the first movie. This was especially disappointing because normally I find Ian McShane to be a very strong actor. So that's it for new main characters. Secondary characters? Forget about it! There was no Pintel and Ragetti, no Annamaria, no Mr. Cotton (or parrot), no midget worth his salt, no Marines-turned-pirates. Even Mr. Gibbs was rather blah in all this. Instead, we have a priest who was captured by Blackbeard, who is constantly preaching about the importance of faith and who falls in love with a mermaid. The preaching was downright annoying, and the romance was a chemistry-less flop. (No pun intended. Get it? Mermaid!)

The plot was also a huge disappointment. The third movie sets up the story of Jack off to find the Fountain of Youth, because he's terrified of death and wants to live forever. Instead, we find him on a quest for the fountain of youth for somebody else, and he doesn't seem that disappointed when it's not for him. That just doesn't make sense for his character, which further illustrates how badly done the characters were in this movie. Actually, I was really excited in the beginning because it started off with an amazing bang. Jack fights with a pirate who's masquerading as Sparrow, and their fight scene is beautifully choreographed and actually someone reminiscent of the Jack/Will sword fight in the first one. Then Jack is captured and brought before the king of England. Their scene together is great, especially Jack's escape attempt when he's almost more focused on getting a bite of cupcake than getting away. (That is classic Jack, so you can see why I had a good feeling about the movie.) Then he's tearing through the streets in a carriage filmed with flaming coal, which was pretty sweet, and I'm still thinking, "This movie is going to be great." And then he hooks up with Blackbeard, and it's all downhill from there. The remainder of the plot is meandering and boring, especially when added to the flat characters. There are extra plot points (like the whole mermaid thing, and especially the mermaid/preacher romance) that could have been left out entirely or at least done much, much better. Then the ending makes no sense at all. What a travesty.

On top of all that, the score was underwhelming. I had listened to the previews on iTunes before seeing the movie, and it seemed very guitar heavy (like they were going for a more modern South American/Caribbean feel) and didn't quite work. In the context of the movie it was passable, but it didn't stand out and it wasn't nearly as memorable as the first three scores. Like the stories, the music is getting tired too.

There were some pretty awesome special effects. I already mentioned the fiery coal carriage careening through the streets. The other awesome thing was that Blackbeard keeps all the ships that he has defeated in bottles in a cabinet on his ship. The bottles were full of thunder and lighting and crashing waves, and ***spoiler alert*** even Cotton's parrot appeared in the bottle with the trapped Black Pearl. Because of this whole bottle thing, a definite sequel is implied. It could be good, based on the hints, but then the whole search for the Fountain of Youth hinted at in At World's End sounded good too. So we'll see.

Rating: 2.5

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010, U.S.)

I can't believe how much I loved this movie. It was completely unique, fresh, nerdy, and fun. From the opening credits (which have little cues to the rest of the movie, if you pay attention), it was just so fun. I can't think of a better word to describe it.

A lot of movies based on graphic novels either don't have the graphic novel feel or else they try too hard. This one was perfect. It made good use of a panel-like technique, but not too often. It was just enough to maintain the feel and emphasize certain shots without being overkill. The same went for "sound effects" written in during fights, for ringing phones, etc., as well as other video game-esque additions, such as lives up, power bars, and the like. One of my particular favorites was an angry girl who cursed a lot and always had a censor bar and beep appear over her mouth to cover F-bombs. Scott asks her how she does it; the character's awareness and acceptance of such abnormal elements in their lives added that much more to the movie.

Basically, the story is quite simple. Scott Pilgrim is a 22-year-old in Toronto who was dumped a year ago by a girl who became famous with her band (while his continues to struggle). He dates a 17-year-old Chinese Catholic schoolgirl. Then he falls for an American Amazon.ca carrier named Ramona, and he has to battle her seven evil exes to be able to date her. The story worked really well. For one thing, the characters were remarkably realistic considering the fantastical situation they're in. (Also, great supporting cast—Anna Kendrick, Chris Evans, Jason Schwartzman, and especially Kieran Culkin.) Secondly, the fight scenes with all the exes were excellent and, yes, fun. They were intensely choreographed so that they didn't seem violent at all, but rather the bloodless fighting you see in video games. Lots of flashing lights, special effects, and then the bad guy dissolves into a pile of coins.

The music was also something special, channeling video game music from the very beginning, with the beeping Universal theme. It also had a strong overlapping presence in the characters' world, like when Scott beats his head against a pole, echoing the rhythm of the music.

This movie is great fun for the generation of early 20-somethings who live in an irresponsible world filled with music, video games, and romantic angst, but also for those of us on the fringes (for instance, those of us who have close friends or family in this world). Really, this movie is great fun for anyone, and I am shocked and pleased to recommend it highly.

Rating: 4.5

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010, U.S.)

I heard a lot of people say this was a boring film because they spend so much time wandering around doing nothing. On the contrary, I found it to be way too fast-paced. They're galloping around the countryside, accomplishing their tasks with seeming ease. It completely negated the epic David and Goliath, hopeless battle for Good that they're fighting, practically belittling their efforts.

I know one shouldn't judge movies based on one's knowledge of the books, but in this case I just can't help it. Of all of the Harry Potter films, I thought this one was the weakest adaptation. Of course, I rather expected it to be. They've been dropping threads of the plot and relationships since the beginning (or perhaps since the fourth movie), so with the final installment, it was impossible to weave together the complete, complex tapestry.

Of course, I still maintain that this undertaking put together one of the greatest casts, and this installment brought almost every participant together. Though it was inevitable to miss Hogwarts, the various settings, from nature to Malfoy Manor to the Ministry to a London street to a snowy graveyard in Godric's Hollow were all beautifully rendered.

I'm glad Dobby had his day, even if it was very "Oh, remember Dobby? He has a very close relationship with Harry even though you don't know anything about it, so he's going to come save his friend now!" Ugh. Even worse, however, was the thing that came out of the locket horcrux. It was way over the top and super cheesy. And greenish—think "dead faces in the water" and the army of the dead and all the other cheesy parts of Lord of the Rings times about a trillion and plus gratuitous nudity. Shiny nudity at that. So even Catherine Hardwicke could be proud! As you can tell, it annoyed me quite a bit.

The music doesn't stick out in my head too much, but I can only assume that it was good, since Alexandre Desplat is one of my favorite composers.

I still look forward to the second part of this film, but I won't get my hopes up.

Rating: 2.5

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

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

Shrek Forever After (2010, U.S.)

I was kind of surprised how complicated this plot was for a family movie. Shrek is having a mid-life crisis (in itself a rather strange plot for a kid flick). He is constantly surrounded by his his wife, three children, best friend, and best friend's three children. It gets monotonous, and he misses being a real ogre. So he makes a deal with Rumplestilskin to go back to being a real ogre for today. In exchange, he gives Rumplestilskin one day of his past. Rumple is a tricky bugger and he takes the day Shrek was born. This somehow results in the King and Queen signing Far Far Away over to Rumple as well.

In the alternate universe, Fiona was never saved from the tower and she is the leader of an ogre resistance against Rumple. Rumple has a witch army, and they're pretty amusing, as is Rumple. (He has a business wig and an angry wig, for starters.) But the plot was convoluted and hard to follow, and the jokes were few and far between. It was okay, but not nearly as good as the first, second, or third Shreks. The score wasn't too bad, and it reused some themes from the earlier movies, which lent some continuity.

And then we wait for true love's kiss, yadda yadda. Eh. Perhaps it didn't help that I was crammed into a theater full of kids.

Rating: 3.0

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009, U.S.)

Dr. Parnassus makes a deal with the devil for immortality, promising the devil his first-born child when he/she reaches 16. A thousand years later, when his daughter Valentina is reaching her 16th birthday, he makes another deal with the devil that he can get five souls first.

Dr. Parnassus has a very unique traveling show, where the audience gets invited behind a mirror where all their dearest dreams and worst nightmares, basically the products of their imagination, await. The land behind the mirror is something you'd have to see—or imagine—to believe. Major CGI work, definitely. Words cannot explain.

The traveling players meet a stranger (Tony) who proves to be a great help in the quest for five souls. When Tony and Valentina spark up a romance, their fellow performer Anton is jealous and suspicious... with good reason.

Of course the major topic of interest regarding this film is the performances of Heath Ledger and his three stand-ins. They did choose a good way to divide the roll. The Tony character takes three trips into the mirror, so they used the three stand-in actors for one trip each. It almost makes sense for Tony to take a different form in his imagination, if you try to force it in your brain. Depp, Farrell, and Law all did brilliantly with their five minutes of on-screen time. I feel like the sketchiest was Ledger. There were gems in his performance, but it was obvious that other parts were unfinished. It gave the film a disjointed feel, but because the plot was so out there anyway, it kind of worked.

It was really an interesting concept and execution, but to be honest I was a bit busy memorizing every part of Ledger's performance and trying to keep up with a confusing plot at once. I need a better viewing for a better review.

Rating: 3.5

Avatar (2009, U.S.)

This was possibly the most underwhelming movie of the year. (Okay, maybe not fair to this movie. The Hurt Locker was worse.) It was not the biggest epic of all time, as all the hype would have you believe. Something tells me that the main reason for the hype is that it looked amazing on the big screen in 3-D. I do think it deserved its Oscars for Art Direction, Cinematography, and Visual Effects, but Best Picture nomination? I don't think so.

Avatar is like a combination of the Matrix and Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. (Actually, Dances with Wolves might be a better example, since the soldier goes native.) Not a good combo. A bunch of Americans colonize an alien planet in order to get their hands on this valuable rock, but they don't even bother to say why this rock is so valuable. It seems like they were so focused on visuals that they ignored the need for a clear plot. In addition to that, the blue people seem to be a racist mix of Native- and African-Americans. Terrible.

I've always been a fan of James Horner, but this score seemed very recycled. Some of the music sounded reminiscent of Titanic, which I guess isn't a huge surprise. But then there was a repeated strain that sounded identical to one from Troy. I looked it up, and lo and behold, Horner composed that score too. Seems like the well of creativity is dry. Not that it wasn't good, it just didn't seem original.

Overall, this movie was just one big disappointment. Visually beautiful, at least!

Rating: 2.5

Alice in Wonderland (2010, U.S.)

You never can guess how a remake of a classic like Alice in Wonderland will turn out. On the other hand, any project that involves Johnny Depp, HBC, Tim Burton, and Danny Elfman is guaranteed to be a winner.

Having forgotten the adventures of her childhood, the 19-year-old Alice returns through the looking glass and finds her destiny is in stopping the Red Queen, not marrying some pompous ass in England.

Wonderland is definitely a land of wonder. All of the mixed live action and CGI really does something amazing. The bizarre plants and animals, Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, the Cheshire cat, and above all the Red Queen... wow.

I love HBC and Johnny Depp. They are incredibly talented actors. But I think that Tim Burton just coaxes the absolute best performances out of them. I mean, I could limit this review to one sentence: HBC as the Red Queen and Johnny Depp as the Hatter. End of sentence, end of review.

Amaaaaaazing.

Rating: 4.0

Scoop (2006, UK)

Here I am, nearly two years after starting blog, saying the same thing. What the hell, Woody Allen? You think you know what's going on and then he just tosses in the most random twists and turns in the plot.

A famous British journalist dies before he can reveal his big scoop, the identity of the tarot card serial killer of London. He cheats the Reaper and appears to American journalism student Sondra, passing his scoop on to her. She's on stage at a magic show featuring magician Sidney. Sidney and Sondra embark on an investigation to verify the dead journalist's story, which has a wealth aristocrat pegged as the murderer. Things are complicated when Sondra falls in love with the prime suspect.

It's hard to say much without giving the ending away, but I will say that the acting was top notch. Allen himself stole the show. He was very funny with his stutter and repetitive phrases and odd mannerisms/demeanor. Johannson was the perfect nerdy co-ed, while Jackman was a perfect suave aristocrat. (I love Hugh Jackman. He is so yummy and such a good actor!) The plot takes all kinds of unpredictable twists and turns, and it is very laugh-out-loud funny. I read one review that called it a "top-notch 'Woody-Lite,'" which is a perfect description. And as always, Allen chose a fascinating soundtrack that completely set the tone of the film. Wonderful.

Rating: 3.5

Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief (2010, U.S.)

You should never judge a book by its movie. One of my mantras, and that definitely goes for this one too.

I will say there were some great things about it, namely Logan Lerman. Ever since I saw him in The Patriot, Riding in Cars with Boys, Jack & Bobby, and The Butterfly Effect when he was kid, I've loved him. If you can act that well when you're 8, you can only get better. He was great in this as Percy. (Although he was actually a bit old to be playing Percy, who's supposed to be about 12 or 13 in the first book. And wow, Lerman's sexy 18-year-old muscles should not be allowed!) His sidekicks were also pretty good. His centaur mentor, played by Pierce Brosnan, was pretty awful—although that could have been partially due to some pretty awful CGI.

The film did capture the adventure and humor of the books to some extent, although a lot of it would be lost if you weren't able to fill in plot holes with knowledge of the book. On the other hand, it also brought some of the settings more alive than I was able to with my imagination when reading the book—namely the Lotus Hotel (wow!), and to a lesser extent Medusa's lair and Hades. And speaking of the Lotus Hotel... Brandon T. Jackson as Grover the Satyr dancing to Lady Gaga was puh-riceless.

It's hard for me to judge whether it could stand alone as a movie since I read the book first, but it was pretty entertaining. Toward the end I found myself glancing at my watch quite a bit, but hey. It wasn't any worse of an adaptation than the later Harry Potter films.

Wonder if it was successful enough to finish the series or whether it will die a painful death like the His Dark Materials trilogy (The Golden Compass).

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

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

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

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

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009, U.S.)

So, the big movie of the summer (which was supposed to be the big movie of the fall). I went into this with absolutely zero expectations. In my opinion, the quality of the films peaked at 3 (which I love) and rapidly deteriorated toward 5 (which I practically hated). I assumed 6 would be just as terrible as 5, since it has the same director and has to cope with all the plot holes from the previous terrible scripts. (Sidenote: I've always loved the casting, the cinematography, the costuming, etc. The scripts have been what are so terrible!)

Well. It was definitely missing a lot. Some of the things were understandably condensed, but other very important things were left out. This whole book is about Voldemort's memories, very important things that build to the events of the 7th book, and yet they only show two. And one of them is dreadfully unsatisfactory. Secondly, it's called The Half-Blood Prince, for crying out loud. So why does Harry use the HBP's book to make one potion, only use one spell out of it, and then forget about it? Where is the Other Minister? Where is all the continuing panic and confusion of a dementor-infested England? Where is the challenge of getting into the cave? Where is Harry confronting the implications of his destiny and having to leave the people he loves? Where is Dumbledore's Army banding together to protect the school? Obviously, the thing I love the most (namely character development) was sacrificed for something that has never seemed important to me, especially in this series (namely action). But then, what do we expect?

I know that I shouldn't compare the movie to the book, but I can't help it. So here's what I think about it by itself. I think they did a wonderful job of showing that there is a world outside of Hogwarts. Harry hanging ont in Underground stations and flirting with waitresses, for example. Or the amazing fly-through shots they did of London, including Death Eater destruction of the Millenium Bridge. Seriously, that shot was one of the best things ever. They also captured what it's like to be a teenager. All the angst and crushes and giggles and tears.

Also, it was hilarious. It's hard to know how to feel about this, since this was one of the most serious books up to this point. (I have to say, they did do a great job with the darkness in the 5th film.) There were so many silly joke-type things. A lot of it may not have been actually funny (especially to teenagers), but so much of it was, "Ha ha, those teens are too wrapped up with themselves!" Also, Rupert Grint's face. That boy sure can act. He really has been the comedic relief for every movie, but he's reached a new high this time. Then there was Daniel Radcliffe, whose normal up-tight, pained, destiny-inflicted persona got a moment to cut loose after taking Felix Felicis. To act out his luckiness, he acted like he was on drugs. Priceless. And Emma Watson, whose acting has always impressed me more than the two boys', has gotten even more talented. She's subtle, and I think one day she'll be a brilliant actress. (You heard it here first. And if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.) As much as I enjoyed all the laughs, looking back it seems like it took away the strength of the terrible moments, like when one character has to force poison down another's throat, or when an enemy is attacked and his chest ripped open, or when crazy Bellatrix is terrorizing England, or when a major character is killed. Completely lacking in transition.

I already mentioned the kids' acting. About the adults, I will say that they were as great as always. Alan Rickman is unparalleled as Snape. Really, he's incredible. As for new faces, I love Jim Broadbent, and even though he's not how I pictured Slughorn, I was looking forward to his performance. It was a bit disappointing, however. I wonder if he ever read the book, because he really didn't capture the most important (or really only) part of Slughorn's (rather flat) character. Also, the woman who played Narcissa was a) not the beautiful ice queen you would imagine and b) not very convincing in her only scene, in which she's trying to save her son. (And in case you're wondering, I looked it up. She has two children. So she should be able to pull this off.) Speaking of Malfoys, I want to quickly note that Tom Felton (Draco) has always been great at playing the weasel-y, bad apple type. But his portrayal of a bad (but not necessarily evil) kid forced to do terrible things to save himself and his family was incredible. He really captured the tortured, hopeless feeling. He should give his screen mother some tips.

Let's talk scenery. I mentioned before the incredible shots of London at the beginning of the movie. Everything else was as a beautiful as always. The only other thing I want to mention is the portryal of an abandoned Diagon Alley. They did a great job of making it look abandoned (although because of poor scripting, you're not sure why it's abandoned). And then there was Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes. The shop was amazing. They had to cut out a lot of what goes on in the shop, but they used it just enough to remind you of Fred and George and their continuing defiance of acceptable behavior. It was garish and loud and very them. (The twins are really my favorites, and I wish they could have featured more. Maybe next time!)

I will cut short this ramble with a mention (as I always must) of the score. So the first 3 were composed by John Williams, someone else did the 4th, and Nicholas Hooper has done the 5th and 6th. I don't remember paying much attention to the score in any since John Williams stopped composing. But I really loved this one. It was dark and ominous and sad, and what little of the appropriate tone that was conveyed in the film came from the score. Good stuff.

It wasn't the book. But ignoring print to screen comparisons (and in comparison to the 5th movie), it was pretty good. I was surprised. (Though I can't wait to see how they manage to fill all the holes they've created in the adaptations of book 7).

Rating: (and I can't believe I'm saying this) 4.0

Kate & Leopold (2001, U.S.)

I have always hated Meg Ryan, but I was willing to overlook this for Hugh Jackman. Mistake!

This movie was terrible. Although the whole romance/comedy/fantasy combo could have worked, even with some scientifically sketchy time travel, it just didn't. I can't really explain it, but the time travel thing just didn't click. For instance, Jackman was very convincing about not understanding the 20th century at first, but by the end of the "day," it was as if he'd always been there. No sense.

Also, the chemistry between Ryan and Jackman was nonexistent. She seemed to have more with Schreiber, who was playing her ex. In fact, the interaction between Jackman and Schreiber created what little enjoyment I found in the flick.

Meg Ryan is an awful actress and the writing for this film was awful. That is a fatal combination. Sorry, Hugh.

Rating: 2.0