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