chronicles of narnia: prince caspian

i was rather disappointed by this one. i really loved the first narnia movie, but this one seemed to completely abandon all the fun and wonder of the first. instead of magic, we get the military. thats not the narnia i remember reading about as a boy! the story starts with the four children one year after the last time they go to narnia. they miss it and hope to return again soon. well, they get their wish but find that narnia has changed a lot in the year since they left. what was only one year in our world was a thousand years in narnia. their kingdom is gone and its thought that all the narnian creatures are extinct. a mean group of people have come and have taken over narnia. their soon-to-be king, prince caspian, is on the run from his evil uncle who wants the thrown. well, this brings the four kids back to help put things right again. the story is pretty straight forward and we get to meet a few new characters, but over all its not very good. what was so good in small doses in the first narnia film, the climactic battle, takes center stage here and overwhelms the whole movie so that it feels more like a military exercise than a fun children's film. aslan and the ice queen show up as well, but neither of them really play a part in the story. they are merely magical distractions from the sword play that seems to be the focus this time around. with all the fighting and declarations of bravery, we dont have any time at all for any character development or any reason to care about narnia a thousand years later.

me without you

a story following the life of two girls who grew up together but took very different paths with their lives is not very good. in fact, trying to remember this movie is kind of hard because it was pretty forgettable. the story starts off with the two girls, one a sweet girl, and the other a rebel. the sweet girl looks to the other girl as a role model and an example of what she really wants to be. but as the film progresses and as she tries to go after the things that her rebel friend does, there is a quick descent and she finds that her friends lifestyle wasnt quite as amazing as she thought. at one point both of them are going after the same guy (of course), he is a professor at the college the sweet girl attends. they both have an affair with him and destroys their friendship. the whole thing was pretty sad and the characters are not very likable in the first place. we never care about them or the sordid paths their lives took.

easy virtue

the wife and i have been going through a bit of a 'period piece' phase in our movie watching, and i've got to say, i rather enjoy it. many of the films we have been watching are set in a victorian sort of era where everyone is a bit stuffy and cant really speak their mind. this film starts off just like that. it follows a man and woman who get married and he brings her home to meet the very british, very stuffy family. she is, of course, a coarse american who does speak her mind, which leads to many many problems. the mother is all pomp and circumstance, and the father is shut off from the world because he has to suffer all that pomp. as the movie unfolds we see the happily married young couple become not so happy. he is beginning to realize that if he wants to stay with her he will have to give up his britishness. jessica biel plays the young american very well, willing to meet the family, but not willing to become what they want her to. as it plays out we learn a lot about the family and why they are the way they are, and the marriage between them must become something else or it must be broken. the acting is great and the sets are fantastic as we watch the family and marriage crumble amidst the grand emptiness. while all this decay is starting to show, the film still keeps a sense of lightness to it.

the wonder of it all

ive never really had much of an interest in the story of how we got to the moon. unlike most little boys, i never wanted to be an astronaut when i grew up. even still, this documentary was very interesting. the makers of this film went around and culled through a ton of archival film and found some amazing new shots of the space program in the sixties and ever since. they also talked with seven of the twelve men who have actually walked on the moon. this is the highlight of the film, to hear from the men themselves what it was like, to give first hand accounts of what fears they had, what they expected, and the reality of being up there. many of these astronauts dig deeper than they ever have for interviews and share the real stories. the most interesting part of the film is when they each talk about what impact their moon landings had on their faith and spirituality. we get to really sense the wonder of it all (oh, so thats where the title comes from!) the only unfortunate part about this film is that they dont include any interviews with neil armstrong. his involvement would have made it even better, i'm sure.

plunkett & macleane

this victorian era film is about two thiefs who break out of prison. one of them cons the other into helping him gain wealth so that he can return to the higher ranks of victorian society. well, they dont have any money so they begin robbing carriages filled with wealthy people in order to reenter that world. they become a sort of masked bandit that the wealthy fear, but love to talk about. the man who reenters the aristocracy loves all the attention (even though no one knows it him), and he gets more and more bold with his heists. the film is thick with style, all the fast editing and strange angles and even stranger soundtrack. some of the fun of watching the movie is knowing that its a small reunion of some of the actors from 'trainspotting'. over all, its kind of fun, but kind of all over the place. there are characters that pop up every once in a while that dont seem to serve much purpose. one of the best scenes involves a gun duel, but it seems awfully disjointed from the rest of the movie. still, it was a bit of fun, so i give it a pass.

hook

i remember back when this one originally came out i was really excited about it and couldnt wait to see it. when i finally did see it i was kind of like 'meh'. all these years later i find i have the same response: meh. on paper it looks amazing: robin williams, the boy who never grew up, playing the boy who never grew up; dustin hoffman bringing a certain depth and gravitas to the role of captain hook; even julia roberts as the cute little tinkerbell. what could possibly go wrong? well, this is one of those times where the whole is less than all of its parts. the story is set many years after the original peter pan, with peter coming to our world and growing up. he got married, has two kids, and seems to have a pretty good, if busy, life. they go to visit their great aunt wendy and the kids get kidnapped by hook to try and get peter to come back to neverland for a rematch. much of the problems with this movie stem from the ridiculous stuff with the lost boys and with the kinda creepy love story elements in it. tinkerbell has always been in love with peter, which isnt played so much for its sweetness, but rather as an awkward wedge between them. great aunt wendy admits to always loving peter, who is 40 years her junior and happily married, which just kind of adds a sad creepy factor to the movie. the biggest problem over all though, is that there is a lot to look at, all of which looks pretty cool, but there is no heart to any of it. try as speilberg might, there is no depth to this fluff. over all, it felt like a great opportunity wasted. perhaps it will be revisited one day in a remake with someone else at the helm who can really dig in to the depths of the characters and situations.

james and the giant peach

having loved 'nightmare before christmas', i was hoping this film would have the same mischievous dark fun as that one. although there is some of that, this one is no where near as good. granted, it is unfair to compare the two movies, but when the character designs are so similar in style and its made by many of the same people, thos comparisons are inevitable. this one follows the story of james, a boy who lives with his two evil aunts who use him as their own personal slave. as a most unusual peach begins growing on their land, they try to make some money on it by having visitors pay to see it. one night james decides to cut it from the tree and it slowly floats up into the sky! james catches a ride with it and finds that there are some pretty strange creatures living inside the giant peach! among them are a grasshopper, a lady bug, a centipede and others. as the peach floats across the ocean, james and his new friends find many things to do on it, including break into song! the songs are quite forgettable and could have really used danny elfman's dark brilliance instead of randy newman. another big problem with the film is that the story is so paper thin that it has a hard time filling the already short 80 minute run time. the movie is a failure, but a noble failure.

the importance of being earnest

diana and i, in the midst of our english victorian era fascination, watched this film recently. its based on an old play by oscar wilde, and it shows! the film is filled with witty lines and conversations as well as amusing twists and turns that are vintage wilde! the plot is about a couple men who step away from their lives on occasion and pretend to be someone else. this other person they pretend to be just happens to be named earnest. both of these fellows fall in love with women who think their names are earnest and eventually they cross paths with their lovers when they are in their real lives. oh the complications! oh the miscommunication! oh the hilarity! actually, it is pretty funny how things get all mixed up between the men and their ladies. colin firth, who is in just about every victorian era movie, does a great job as the man caught between two lies and two women. this one is worth checking out just for the witty dialog from oscar wilde!

rachel getting married

i had heard good things about this movie, and anne hathaway even got an oscar nomination from the film. the small story is about a woman returning home from rehab to attend her sister's wedding. as the movie unfolds, the reason for her being in rehab in the first place become clear, as well as its impact on the entire family. the movie does a great job of showing what its like to be the black sheep of the family as well as big topics like trust, forgiveness, acceptance, and loss. we feel for hathaway's character as she is put back into a situation where she is blamed for things that she did in her past and we see how hard it can be for those closest to you to forgive and try to move past costly mistakes. this is a good movie. so why am i only giving it two stars? well, because of the marriage itself. the movie spends about 10 minutes of its 90 minute run time on the wedding and its reception. there is no dialog, just shots of people talking and dancing. the wedding itself is not a traditional wedding, its some sort of strange hippie/indian/bollywood/african/drum circle type thing that is so pretentious and overwrought that it quite literally ruined the movie for me. during the ten minutes of this nonsense, i had forgotten about all the great realistic portrayals that came before it. instead it just felt like some sort of cultural mishmash of stuffy arrogance and unrealistic make believe. sorry, but all my positive feelings for the movie were washed away by the incessant impossible fantasy of the wedding itself. people like this and events like this dont actually exist. the movie was a deep drama about life issues and then becomes some sort of fantasy less believable than something from 'care bears' or 'my little pony'.

the education of charlie banks

this film follows charlie banks as he goes from high school to college and tries to find out who exactly he is. he obviously grew up in a family that put education before any sort of social life. charlie doesnt have many friends and seems to be fairly socially awkward. while in high school, he and his one friend decide to go to a party anyway. while there they meet jason ritter's character who has a huge temper problem and ends up getting in a really violent fight. charlie, being the good boy that he is, goes to the police with what he saw. years later, as charlie and his friend are in college, ritter shows up again. having never admitted that he was the one who turned him in, charlie freaks out when ritter arrives. the two of them slowly become friends and it seems that ritter has gotten his temper under control until an incident happens on campus. the two of them must deal with what happened all those years ago- will it end poorly for charlie?
the movie isnt that great, and the direction is mediocre, but what lifts this one one out of the one star category is the fantastic acting by jesse eisenberg. that guy is so good at playing tormented socially stunted outsiders that it elevates a bad movie to ok.

bright star

this film is about a short lived love affair between john keats, a famous poet, and the girl he loves. another victorian era film that is all about the love that is not allowed by society. the girl, played by abbie cornish, is not allowed to marry keats because he does not have any money. that doesnt stop her from continuing her correspondence with him through intimate letters. from time to time he is able to visit her and they share what time they can together. also in the story we see keats writing friend, played by paul schnieder (who has been a favorite of mine since first seeing him in 'the assassination of jesse james by the coward robert ford'). he is pretty much a big jerk in this movie, even forcing himself upon the family servant and getting her pregnant. this, as is so often the case in these victorian movies, is a romance that blossoms quickly, but is destined to end sadly. the film itself is pretty good with all the leads doing a great job with the story. cornish makes the whole thing very believable as she falls for this hopeless case. even though schneider plays a cad, i still wanted to love the character because of the great presence he brings.

muppets take manhattan

ive never been a big muppets fan. i remember the old tv shows and would watch them from time to time, but i never really thought they were very funny. so i guess this movie isnt really one that i was going to like from the get go, so the fact that i didnt much care for it is not surprising. the story follows the muppets as they try to take a musical that they created in college (ok, the muppets went to college?!?) and try to bring it to broadway. when they arrive in new york they go to every producer in town and try to get them to put on their musical. it doesnt work. then they just seem to give up completely and everyone goes their seperate ways. well, kermit doesnt give up and meets some people who can help make it possible. i guess one of the reasons i didnt like the film is because their actions are unreasonable. first, the fact that they thought they would be able to make it work is ridiculous, and then when it doesnt, and when it doesnt it seems that they completely give up on the show and on each others friendships. a slight miscommunication sends them all packing, when all it would have taken was just one conversation to fix the problems some of them had with each other. i guess this problem is true of many movies, but with the muppets, the absurd comes into even stronger contrast. i want to like the muppets, but this one is a stinker.

land before time

i absolutely adored this movie when i was a kid. one christmas i told my parents i wanted this movie on vhs and nothing else! (fortunately they got it for me and a few other things too...) when the wife and i saw that it was on we had to watch it! unfortunately it doesnt hold up quite as well as a child's unquestioning love, but thats the way memories go, huh? the story follows littlefoot as he tries to find his family and make his way to the great valley. along the way he makes a few friends, and one scary t-rex enemy! it was unfortunate to realize that the film isnt really that good at all. the animation is poor (even by 1988 standards...) with all the colors washed out in that typical don bluth style. the story is very weak, even with all the extra padding, the film only clocks in at about 64 minutes. but, gosh darn it, i still love it. more for what it was to me than for what it really is. sometimes you just have to let nostalgia win out over the harsh cold realities, right? petri would agree, 'yup yup yup!'

bye bye love

diana said she loved this movie growing up and watched it all the time. i'm not exactly sure why, there is almost nothing in here that a young girl would find enjoyable. or that i would find enjoyable for that matter. the story follows three divorced dads as they try to figure out life post marriage. one of them, paul reiser, deal with it the best way he can, he wallows in his depression and has been having a hard time moving on. the second one, randy quaid, deals with it through anger, and the third one, matthew modine, fills the void with one night stands. each of them try to figure out what happens next in life as they still try to be good fathers for their children. most of the movie seems to be an advertisement for mcdonalds, since much of the film takes place in one. each of the fathers drop off and pick up their kids from the exes at mcdonalds and spend a lot of time sitting in the restaurant discussing how much life sucks. its not a good ad for mcdonalds, but an ad none the less... the stories are shallow and selfish, leaving the kids to suffer from childish fathers who dont seem to know how to deal with life as adults. i didnt end up caring for any of the three men, but instead just felt sorry for their children who have to deal with them.

it might get loud

this is a very interesting documentary that brings together three men who are considered the best guitarists of their respective generations. jimmy page of led zeppelin, the edge of U2, and jack white of the white stripes. the three men are interviewed about their perspective on guitars, playing music, what influenced them, and how they go about writing a song. it was pretty cool to hear the three different perspectives the guys have about how they get the guitar to do what they want. now, i dont have any interest in jimmy page. i'm sure he is an amazing musician, but i just dont care much about what he had to say. the other two, though, were great fun to listen to. the thing that impressed me most about the two other guys was their approach to the guitar. jack white talked about how he will take any old guitar, no matter the quality, and try to dominate it until it does what he wants, he sees technology as a crutch that limits his creativity. the edge has about the exact opposite approach, he spends hours running his guitars through the computer and through different distortion peddles trying to find just the right sound trying to make it sound like it does in his head. the two different approaches, though opposite, result in some of the best guitar playing out there today. the documentary climaxes with the three of these guys getting together, talking, and jamming. the final jam itself was a bit of a let down, but the info learned through out the course of the film was very interesting.