A Week at the Movies

So this past week I saw three movies, and loved 2 out of 3.  All three movies I saw - Frozen, Hunger Games: Catching Fire, and The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - are all based on books/stories, but each one handled the retelling of book-to-movie very differently.

Let's start with Frozen.  I love this movie so much that I've already seen it twice in the theater, with only a week between each showing.  It's a funny and sweet adventure with great songs and lots of laughs.  I just felt so good after seeing this movie because it's such a happy and fun story.  It was even better seeing it the second time, because it was great listening to other people enjoying the movie or getting surprised by the plot twists.

Of course, the story it's inspired by - The Snow Queen by Hans Christian Anderson - is nowhere near as happy as this adaptation.  But honestly, no one ever expects Disney to stick to the original fairy tales.  Their movies would be a whole lot darker if they did.  And we wouldn't come away with awesome songs like "Fixer Upper" and "In Summer."

The next movie I saw was The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.  This was such a great movie.  It's got romance and action and adventure and intrigue.  The script and the acting are both really good.  And the new characters are great additions to the story.  I originally didn't think I'd like Sam Claflin in the role of Finnick, but he was perfect.  Second movies in a trilogy/series can suffer sometimes, because it feels like a filler or stepping stone, but this one was just as good as the first movie.

And as for how well it stuck to the book... these Hunger Games movies are the perfect example of how to adapt a book into a movie.  The plot stays close to the book, and the changes made are minor.  Most of the changes were made for the sake of time, and I believe that since Suzanne Collins is involved with the making of the movies that she's helped keep the movies on track with her books.  I left the theater excited for the next movie and satisfied with how well the movie did justice to the book.

Which leaves us with the last movie I saw and the one I did not love - The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.  Let me start with what I did like, because that's a considerably shorter list.  Smaug was amazing.  He's the absolute best part of the whole movie.  Also the part where Gandalf leaves to face the Necromancer is really cool as well.  And that's it for what I liked.  Even my fan-girl love for Richard Armitage and Lee Pace could not make me love this movie.

Now I saw this movie with my brother and sister who each had different reactions to the movie.  My sister who hasn't read the book and doesn't really care about changes from book to movie did not like the movie.  She thought it just wasn't a well-made movie.  One of the biggest problems (that bothered my brother too) is the 3D effects issue.  When you see a movie that has a 3D version, you always hope that there aren't going to be a lot of 3D gimmicks that don't work when seen in 2D.  The Hobbit: DoS has plenty.  I mean, they're not gimmicky per say, like bouncy balls flying at your face (bad call, Journey to the Center of the Earth), but there were lots of moments in fight scenes (especially the scene with the spiders) where it was obvious that stuff was supposed to be popping out at our faces.  Which looks stupid when you're watching it in 2D.

Another big problem is that there just isn't enough to fill a whole three movies so this movie felt like it had a lot of filler.  The battles went on forever; whenever you thought they were over, they'd just keep going.  They jumped from one thing to another in such rapid succession, and it was so overly melodramatic.  I think the biggest problem is that they're just trying to get from the first movie (which set the stage) to the third movie (which has all the big final battles) so this movie is simply a stepping stone, and like most middle books & movies, suffers for it.

And then there were my pet peeves - the huge major changes and additions to the story.  I seriously tried to separate this movie from the book, to tell myself not to compare the two, but I have such an emotional attachment to that story that it just killed me watching how they mangled everything.  I don't want to give anything away, in case you still haven't seen it and want to, but there were just so many differences, so many drastic changes that I wondered if I was even watching The Hobbit anymore.

So that was my past week at the movies.  Feel free to comment if you agree or disagree with anything.  I know plenty of people who would completely disagree with me about some things, and plenty of others that share my opinions.  I'd love to hear where you stand.

Upcoming Books-to-Screen Adaptations

This past Top Ten Tuesday was all about what books we'd like to see made into movies or TV shows, and it got me thinking about all of the screen adaptations that are already in progress or just released.  The big craze right now seems to be making YA books into movies, and while in some ways I love this, in other ways I'm dreading it.  There's no denying that Hollywood doesn't always get it right when it comes to adapting books.  Things get left or cut out, storylines are completely changed, or terrible actors are hired to play our favorite characters.  But sometimes they do actually get it right, which is why I'm always on pins and needles when I hear about the next book-to-screen adaptation.

This year and next are going to see a lot of adaptations, both in the movies and on TV.  And I thought I'd share some of them, and let you know which ones I'm psyched about and which ones have me biting my nails with nervousness.

The I-Cannot-Wait-to-See-These Movies

• Ender's Game
• Based on Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card
• Release Date:  November 1st (USA)
• The Book Thief
• Based on The Book Thief by Markus Zusak
• Release Date:  November 15th (USA)
• The Maze Runner
• Based on The Maze Runner by James Dashner
• Release Date:  2014
• The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
• Based on Catching Fire by Suzanne Collins
• Release Date:  November 22nd (USA)

The I'm-Really-Not-Sure-About-These Movies

• Austenland
• Based on Austenland by Shannon Hale
• Release Date:  August 30th, 2013
• Why I'm nervous:  Because I watched the trailer, and I'm just not sure if the movie's really going to stay true to the book.  I love Keri Russell and JJ Feild, and I know Shannon Hale was one of the screenwriters, but I'm still really nervous that it's going to be over-the-top cheesy.
• Divergent
• Based on Divergent by Veronica Roth
• Release Date:  March 20, 2014 (?)
• Why I'm nervous:  One reason I'm nervous is because I'm scared of what parts of the story will be cut or changed for time's sake.  And the other reason is that I don't love the casting for the movie.  Everyone's in love with Theo James, but even though I think he's great-looking, I just think he looks too old to play Four.  And I don't think Shailene Woodley's that good of an actress, at all.
• The Fault in Our Stars
• Based on The Fault in Our Stars by John Green
• Release Date:  2014
• Why I'm nervous:  Because I LOVE this book and I will be SO upset if they screw it up.  And once again, I'm not a fan of Shailene Woodley, but I did hear from a friend that John Green felt the same way.  Then he saw her audition and changed his mind, so maybe I'll be surprised.

Movie Review: The Host

Whenever I watch a movie that's based off a book, I'm a little nervous about how they're going to adapt it.  I'm usually okay with small changes; it's the big changes and pointless additions that bother me.  But there really wasn't a reason to worry about that with The Host.  If I had seen this movie just a few days ago, it probably would have had a place in my Top Ten Best Book-to-Movie adaptations.  It has a great cast, the writing and pace are good, and it stays relatively close to the book.

• Casting
• Saoirse Ronan was perfect as Melanie/Wanda.  She's a brilliant actress (I personally think she'd be a better Tris than Shailene Woodley), and I love how she portrayed her character's inner conflict.
• Max Irons and Jake Abel - how do you choose?  (Team Ian!)  They each brought their characters to life perfectly.  They were exactly the way I pictured them in the book.
• Diane Kruger pulled off her character so well.  I totally despised her throughout the movie because she just oozed evilness.
• Secondary/supporting characters - Each person they chose for the other parts was great, whether they were well-known (William Hurt) or not (Chandler Canterbury).  They all brought so much personality to their roles, even if it was only a small part.
• Writing/Script
• I have to admit I was a little concerned about the writing for this movie.  I kept thinking, "What if this is another Twilight?"  Even though the book had been so amazing, it didn't mean that the screenwriters would do it justice.  Fortunately they did, staying away from total cheesiness and writing a pretty sweet movie.
• Pace/Action
• I definitely felt like they beefed up the action in the movie in order to keep things from getting slow.  They don't add any unnecessary action scenes.  They simply took what was already in the book and made it bigger.
• The movie was paced very well.  It never felt like it was getting boring, or that the story was dragging.  With the action scenes mixed in with the romance and drama, the movie had a good balance of movement.
• The only weird thing about the movie was that it felt both rushed and not rushed.  The movie itself moved at a good pace (which I already said), but at the end, I couldn't help but feel like it had all happened too quickly.  I think that was mostly because they had to cut a lot from the book for the sake of time, so I kept feeling like they'd skipped ahead too far.
• Book vs. Movie
• I loved how true the movie was to the book.  Yes, there were small changes, but every adaptation makes small changes here and there.  None of the changes were drastic or story-altering.  They were very minor things that I had no problem with.
• Also, as I said earlier, things were cut from the story.  But once again, when doing an adaptation, you can't fit a whole book into a two-hour movie, unless it's a really short book.  And The Host is in no way a short book.

I truly loved this movie and felt that it lived up to the book.  I'm definitely looking forward to Stephenie Meyer's next two books in the series, and I hope that if they do movie adaptations of those, that they can get the original cast and do as well with them as they did with The Host.

Movie Review: Oz the Great and Powerful

Where to begin?  I neither loved nor hated Oz the Great and Powerful.  It was fun and entertaining, and James Franco was definitely the best-looking wizard of Oz I've ever seen.  But for the most part, the movie was just cheesy, from some terrible CGI and 3-D gimmicks to over-the-top acting.

That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the movie, because I did.  There were plenty of funny moments that had us all laughing, as well as a couple of secondary characters that provided both humor and cuteness.  Oz's adorable flying monkey bellhop-turned-sidekick was probably my favorite character during the whole movie.

The coolest part of the movie was the Land of Oz.  This film's very bright and colorful depiction was reminiscent of the original movie, while adding some fun new elements and incorporating other parts of Oz that we didn't get to see in the original.

Now for the stuff that kept me from considering this a fantastic movie.  First, not all of the actors in this movie can... well, act.  Others can act, but the script made it hard for me to take them seriously.  Then there were the moments when it became super-obvious that characters had changed from actors to CGI as they were running through the landscape.  But I can forgive all that because none of it bothered me as much as the stupid 3-D gimmicks.  I really hate the 3-D craze in Hollywood right now.  It doesn't impress me; it just gives me headaches.  And the biggest reason I hate it is because of the gimmicks the filmmakers throw in, gimmicks that don't translate to the 2-D version.  Things popping out at you and the "roller coaster effect" that's supposed to make you feel like you're moving too - none of those work in 2-D, which is the version I always watch.  It's the version most people will watch when they buy the DVD.  So throwing in all those "special effects" that only work in 3-D just ruins a movie for me, because it looks cheap in 2-D.

So, Hollywood, make as many 3-D movies as you want, but please remember to consider the people who will only be watching the 2-D version.  It would have made Oz the Great and Powerful a much better movie, in my opinion, if you'd simply avoided the gimmicks.  B

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

It's so hard to write reviews of movies that just came out without giving anything away, but I shall try.

I really liked The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.  It's fun and exciting.  It's definitely not on the same level as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but it's still very good.  And it's definitely not for children.  The book may have been written for kids, but this movie is rated PG-13 for action violence (lots of action violence) and scary images, aka really creepy orcs and gross goblins (totally unintentional alliteration).

In adapting the book to the movie, there were changes of course, but I was expecting them so they didn't bother me too much.  Also, I didn't mind the extra material that Peter Jackson said he'd be adding from The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings appendices.  It was interesting, and it definitely helps explain things, such as where Gandalf was whenever he left Bilbo & the dwarves in the book.

The dwarves are amazing.  Each one has a unique look and personality; it's not just a homogenous group of white-bearded short guys.  Certain dwarves got some more screen time than others, especially Fili & Kili (being the youngest "hot" dwarves).  The movie also just further proved that my favorite actor, Richard Armitage (Thorin Oakenshield), is incredibly talented and worthy of being my favorite.  I love him so much, and his portrayal of Thorin is brilliant.

Bilbo's character is a bit different.  In the books, Bilbo would never have run off gleefully to join an adventure or willingly jumped into a fight with orcs, but in this movie adaptation, he's become a bit braver.  Martin Freeman was definitely the right choice to play Bilbo, as he's a great actor and really brings Bilbo to life.  Gandalf is the same abrupt, pipe-smoking, Hobbit-loving wizard.  McKellen has made that role entirely his; anyone else would just have been wrong.

My biggest complaint (and there aren't many) is the CGI.  In the Lord of the Rings trilogy, there was an army of extras dressed in full costume to play the orcs, but in The Hobbit, they took what is probably the most current and possibly cheapest route.  The orcs, the goblins, the elf army, and the dwarf army were all CGI.  Of course there were CGI characters in the original trilogy, but there weren't as many.  And the problem with using so much CGI is that it makes the movie look so much less real.  I remember so many people loved Avatar because they said the CGI looked so real.  But when I watched it, it just looked like very good computer graphics.  In The Hobbit, I feel like the CGI wasn't always that good.  There were moments when it was so fake that it was distracting.  I can't even imagine how it looks in 48fps.

Besides the CGI, I can't really find much else to say about this movie that's negative.  Good acting, lots of adventure, and a classic story make this an awesome movie that I would absolutely see again.  And I'm looking forward to seeing what Jackson has done with the rest of the story.  A

Side note -  I know it seems silly to complain about this, but for the past few years, every time we go to the theater, every time, someone tall sits in front of me.  It doesn't matter if they're part of a group or by themselves; when choosing a seat, they always pick the one in front of me.  If they're part of a group, it doesn't really bother me too much, but it really irks me when it's just one person.  When we went to see The Hobbit, I was sitting towards the end of the row, the last of my friends, and there was a seat between me & the two people sitting at the very end of the row.  All the rows in front of us were empty, and a very tall guy walks down the whole row in front of us and picks the seat directly in front of me.  WHY???  It wasn't like I was right in the middle, and if he'd gone one more seat down, he wouldn't have been sitting in front of anyone.  Like I said, I know it's silly to make a big deal of it, but it would be nice to see a movie again without someone's head in the middle.  (And of course, when sharing this story at work, one coworker compared me to a hobbit, and two other coworkers couldn't help teasing and said I should bring a booster seat next time.  Pfft!)

Title:  The Hunger Games
Genre:  Dystopian/Science-fiction
MPAA Rating:  PG-13 for intense violent thematic material and disturbing images - all involving teens

My rating:  A+ 

Synopsis (from imdb.com):  In a dystopian future, the totalitarian nation of Panem is divided between 12 districts and the Capitol. Each year two young representatives from each district are selected by lottery to participate in The Hunger Games. Part entertainment, part brutal retribution for a past rebellion, the televised games are broadcast throughout Panem. The 24 participants are forced to eliminate their competitors while the citizens of Panem are required to watch. When 16-year-old Katniss's young sister, Prim, is selected as District 12's female representative, Katniss volunteers to take her place. She and her male counterpart Peeta, are pitted against bigger, stronger representatives who have trained for this their whole lives.

 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Thrilling, intelligent, and exceptionally filmed, I was completely impressed with The Hunger Games.  Having fallen in love with the book series, I was a little worried about whether I was going to be disappointed or happy when leaving the theater, but this movie was incredible, beginning to end.

First, the casting was perfect.  Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Elizabeth Banks-- they all did an amazing job bringing their characters to life.  I still can't believe how many people thought Jennifer Lawrence shouldn't play Katniss because she was too curvy.  Who cares if she has hips if she can act?  I'd much rather have a curvy actress than some skinny girl who can barely change the tone of her voice, let alone act.  *cough* Kristen Stewart *cough*.  Hutcherson, as Peeta Mellark, also did a great job at portraying his character's openness and quiet strength.

The filmography was brilliantly done.  They decided to go with the shaky, handheld camera for many of the more intense and violent moments in the film, which added to the realism.  The filmmakers worked hard to achieve realism and believability during the film, and I think they were successful.  The sets and the costumes were neither too simple nor too ridiculous (except the Capitol citizens, but their clothing was supposed to be ridiculous).  I also loved the use of color throughout the film.  In District Twelve, everything is gray or tinged with gray, and the images are sharp and stark.  But as soon as Peeta & Katniss board the Capitol train, the color' s become vivid but overwhelmingly so, like it's oppressive.  When they finally enter the arena for the Games, the colors are lush, but everything seems to sharpen again.

The violence that was to be expected in a story about kids killing each other in a gladiator-like event is there but a little subdued.  The books were written for a younger audience after all, and they didn't want to alienate a large part of their audience.  It still doesn't mean that it wasn't intense, especially when you remember that you're not watching two adults fighting, but two kids.  It was especially hard to watch whenever it was a 12-year-old, because they're so little and young.

There were changes between the book and the movie of course, which I will discuss further in an upcoming Book Vs. Movie entry.  What I will say is that the changes weren't huge or plot-changing.  There was only one that really irked me, but I think it's because they're going to address it in the second movie.  So I'm definitely not disappointed with this adaptation.

Even if I'd never read the books, I would have enjoyed this movie.  It had all the right components for a great movie-- action, adventure, romance, interesting plots and subplots.  And because I didn't see it on opening weekend, I got to watch it without a lot of screaming tween fan-girls.  Major bonus.  A+

Book Vs. Movie: Something Borrowed

I honestly don't know why I bother with chick lit or romantic comedies anymore.  Maybe I just keep hoping that I will find another book like Austenland.  But nothing ever comes close.  Chick lit & rom-coms are almost always cliched, immoral, and annoying.  I decided to give this one a try anyway, simply because I think Ginnifer Goodwin is a great actress, and because other reviewers liked the book.  Next time I will follow my instincts and avoid books & movies like Something Borrowed.

Something Borrowed by Emily Giffin tells the story of Rachel, an average, hard-working 30-year-old woman whose beautiful, superficial best friend Darcy is getting married to the seemingly perfect guy Dex.  After a night of "partying" for her birthday, Rachel ends up taking a cab home with Dex, and they sleep together.  The rest of the book centers around Rachel and Dex figuring out how they feel about each other, while also showing the development of Darcy & Rachel's friendship over the years through flashbacks. 

I didn't even bother finishing the book.  Besides the whole cheating storyline turning me completely off, the characters were two-dimensional and stereotyped.  The main character would just not stop whining about how old and miserable and alone she was; her best friend was as superficial and shallow as you could make her; and the fiance Dex was spineless and wishy-washy.  Could someone please tell me when men stopped being... men?  There is nothing attractive about a man with no backbone.  Also, the flashbacks that are supposed to show us how Darcy & Rachel became and stayed friends throughout the years were unrealistic.  There's no way these two completely different people would have remained best friends, especially considering how badly Darcy treats Rachel.  I just can't take this book seriously at all.  Perhaps if the characters hadn't been SO cliched and transparent, or if Rachel had not been such a whiny doormat, or if the guilt she and Dex supposedly felt had seemed real at any point, I might have taken the time to finish the book.  Incomplete

Something Borrowed, the movie, follows almost the same storyline except for a few changes I noticed here and there.  For one thing, Dex and Rachel were actually really into each other during college; Darcy just swooped in and "stole" Dex away.  But the two of them never stopped loving each other, even after Dex proposed to Darcy.  I suppose the screenwriters thought that if Dex and Rachel had always been in love with each other, then we'd be more forgiving and accepting of their cheating.

Throughout the whole movie, I sympathized the most with Rachel's best friend Ethan.  He pretty much said it best when he yelled at Rachel for being a whiny pain-in-the-butt who brought these problems on herself.  And I can't stand that the movie is geared towards making you think it's okay that Dex and Rachel cheated because a) Darcy cheated too so "it's only fair", and b) they all ended up happy in the end anyway.  Rachel even says to Darcy, during a chance meeting months later, that she's sorry for hurting her, but not for sleeping with Dex.  And Darcy seems okay with it because she's happy with how her life is going (she's pregnant by the guy she cheated on Dex with).  So the moral of the story seems to be that as long as everyone gets to have a happily-ever-after, it doesn't matter how they were able to achieve it.  C-

Book Vs. Movie: Monte Carlo

It rarely ever happens, but sometimes a movie surpasses the book that inspired it.  For this first review in the Book Vs. Movie series, that is exactly what happened.  Monte Carlo, released in 2011, is loosely based on the 2001 novel Headhunters by Jules Bass.  Both center around a group of women who go on vacation together to have some fun and excitement, and while there, everyone believes them to be someone else, and they all find love.  That is the extent of the similarities between the two; the rest is incredibly different.

Monte Carlo tells the story of three young women-- Meg, Emma, and Grace-- in their late teens and twenties who travel together to France to celebrate Grace's high school graduation.  When escaping from the rain in an expensive hotel, Grace is mistaken for an heiress, and the three of them take advantage of the mix-up to travel first-class to Monte Carlo.  Of course this leads to all sorts of adventures and mishaps that lead to Grace and Meg finding love, until the real heiress arrives and panic ensues.  It's a fun, cute movie with surprisingly few embarrassing moments and a satisfying happy ending.  Selena Gomez isn't the most amazing actress, and her British accent was terrible, but overall she did a pretty good job.  But it was Leighton Meester's character that I loved the most; her story line was the most exciting and romantic.  A-

Headhunters is completely different.  The story revolves around four middle-aged, menopausal women (with filthy mouths and dirty minds) who decide to spice up their boring, monotonous lives by traveling to Monte Carlo and impersonating four extremely wealthy women.  They meet four men there, who are also impersonating people, and they all fall in love.  Their secrets eventually cause lots of drama and headaches.  One reviewer said of this book, "These women make the First Wives Club look like Little Women."  And it's absolutely true.  I couldn't finish the book; it was so trashy.  Every other sentence contained the F-word, and all the women talked about was sex in the crudest way possible.  Definitely not worth reading.  Incomplete

The Superhero Years

It seems that our society has become obsessed with superheroes.  Of course, this isn't a new phenomenon, but for some time, their popularity had dwindled.

Now it seems Hollywood is bent on a "revival".  Thor, Captain America, Batman, Iron Man, Spiderman, Superman-- all the old favorites are getting a facelift and a franchise.  And some are even joining forces for the highly-anticipated movie, The Avengers.

But why now?  Perhaps it's simply because Hollywood has run out of ideas, a very plausible theory.  But I think it has more to do with the current state of affairs.  When Superman, Captain America, and Batman were introduced, World War II was just starting and America was still recovering from the depression.  Iron Man, Spiderman, and Thor were products of the 1960s, when the country was involved in both the Cold War and the Vietnam War.  Now, America is struggling financially and fighting terrorism in the Middle East.  What better time to re-introduce America to their heroes?  Superheroes are born out of necessity; when America needs them, they appear, ready to save the day.  And so, Hollywood has been hard at work.

The two most recent Superhero movies I've watched are Thor and Captain America.  I personally enjoyed Captain America more.  For one thing, I think Chris Evans is a much better actor than Chris Hemsworth, and for another, the dialogue was pretty awful at points in Thor. Both movies were enjoyable though.  Their plots, special effects, and supporting cast all work together to make fun, action-packed movies where good triumphs over evil.  I'm definitely looking forward to when these two heroes meet up in The Avengers this summer.
Thor:  B
Captain America:  A-

Title:  I Am Number Four
Genre:  Fantasy/Science Fiction
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, and some language

My rating:  B+

Being one of those people who likes to read the book before seeing the movie, I usually cannot help comparing the two.  If they don't make too many changes or if the changes aren't drastic, I can enjoy the movie, despite loving the book so much.  I Am Number Four received a B+ from me, not because they changed things, but because the movie had too many plot holes and seemed much to rushed.

Of course there were a couple of changes, most of which I considered no big deal.  But there was one change that just irked me throughout the whole movie.  In the books, John's protector and mentor Henri is a very different person; he's much kinder and loving, treating John as if he really was his son.  John looks up to him and thinks of him as a father.  In the movie, John and Henri have a tense relationship, with Henri being very strict and gruff and John being very disrespectful.  I was able to handle every other change, both minor and major, but the change to Henri's character was the one that I couldn't get past.  It made Henri's self-sacrifice in the end seem less emotional and touching than it should have been.

But the main problem with the movie was just how much they rushed it.  Most movies now are at least two hours long, so why they cut this one short is beyond me.  If they'd just added on an extra fifteen minutes, they could have filled some of the plot holes or kept the movie from feeling too hurried.  B+

I am so incredibly sick of writing about rom-coms because there never seems to be anything in them that's fresh or new or original.  The only real pull in these two movies are the actors.  Josh Duhamel and Matthew Goode are gorgeous eye-candy, but beyond that these two movies are just the same-old story, told again and again and again with a different setting and a different set of secondary characters.  Still enjoyable, but boring to review.

We'll start with Life As We Know It.  Two people who seem completely wrong for each other are thrown together by fate, and after lots of embarrassing situations and eye-opening revelations, they fall in love.  Cue obstacle that tears them apart, both physically and emotionally-- his job opportunity.  But then they realize that they still love each other and have to be together, and in the end, they are reunited in a sweet, heartfelt moment and live happily ever after.  Sound familiar?  What makes Life As We Know It somewhat unique is the baby.  Not that babies have never been in rom-coms before, but they're usually the biological child of at least one of the main characters.  This time the baby is the daughter of friends, who die in a car crash and leave the baby's care to the two main characters.

Leap Year follows almost exactly the same formula.  Two people who seem completely wrong for each other are thrown together because the woman is chasing after another man and needs help getting to him.  After lots of embarrassing situations and eye-opening revelations, they fall in love with each other.  Before they can reveal this to one another, cue the obstacle that tears them apart, both physically and emotionally-- the other man.  But then she realizes that she still loves "Mr. Wrong" and that they have to be together, and in the end are reunited in a sweet, heartfelt moment and live happily ever after.  The originality in this movie?  Ireland and an Irish proposal custom.  That's pretty much the only thing in this movie that sets it apart from every other rom-com out there.

That still doesn't mean that I disliked the movies.  I did enjoy both of them, mostly due to the fact that people seem to love the idea of polar opposites falling in love.  It's in almost every movie because people want it to be true.  The geek wants to end up with the cheerleader; the timid wallflower wants the exciting bad boy to notice her.  That's why Hollywood will be churning out these same-old romantic comedies until the end of time, and why people will still go see them.  Leap Year:  B.  Life As We Know It:  A-.

Title:  Super 8
Format:  Movie Theater (June 10, 2011)
Genre:  Science fiction thriller

Rating:  B+

Description (from IMDB):  After witnessing a mysterious train crash, a group of friends in the summer of 1979 begin noticing strange happenings going around in their small town, and begin to investigate into the creepy phenomenon.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I know my sister will disagree with me on this, but I actually enjoyed this movie.  Super 8 was exciting and thrilling, with great special effects and a good plot.  The acting was also good, especially considering that most of the main cast was under the age of 16.

I love movies where you don't see the "villain" until the end.  It's so much more suspenseful and exciting; it keeps you guessing.  Sometimes they don't pull it off very well, but in this movie, they were able to pull it off brilliantly.  There was so much tension and anticipation because we weren't able to see the "creature" until near the end.

My biggest problem with this movie was the profanity.  The kids had some of the worst mouths, and it marred my enjoyment of the film.  I had gone to the theater, hoping that Super 8 would be a great movie for my mom and dad too, but I know my mom, and she would never like this movie simply because the kids all have filthy mouths.  If they'd taken out most of the profanity, it would have been an awesome movie, one that my whole family (with the exception of the 9-year-old) could have enjoyed.  B+

Title:  Bridesmaids
Format:  Movie Theater (May 14, 2011) 
Genre:  Comedy
Rating:  B-/C-

I'm giving the movie a mixed rating, because while it had funny parts, I will never watch it again.  I almost never watch rated-R movies.  I avoid them, because I really hate extreme violence, raunch, and hearing the F-word repeatedly.  PG-13 is where I usually draw the line, and I rarely go out of that comfort zone.  But this was for a bridesmaid outing with my friends Mary (the bride) and Christine.  Plus, I didn't even realize the movie wasn't PG-13 until the day before.

Bridesmaids was made by the same people who put out Superbad and Knocked Up (that should have been my first warning there), and focuses on the story of a woman whose best friend is getting married, whose love-life is a wreck, and whose fellow bridesmaid is an evil control-freak trying to take over her position as the bride's BFF.

The movie, being rated R, had plenty of raunchy humor and profanity (which is why I'll never see it again), and one rather gross scene involving food poisoning that had both Mary and me covering our eyes.  Both the opening & closing scenes of the movie were awkward and WAY out of my comfort zone.  If you dislike profanity, extremely raunchy humor, and puking, don't ever watch this movie!

What really disappoints me about this movie is that it had ridiculously funny parts that would have been awesome without all the raunch and grossness.  Bridesmaids could easily have been made a PG-13 movie without losing the real humor and fun of the movie.  I had so much fun laughing with my friends, but it would have been a better experience without all the rated-R material.  B-/C-

Title:  Tangled
Format:  Blu-ray
Genre:  Disney princess/Musical
Rating:  A+

Description (from All Movie Guide):  The classic Brothers Grimm fairy tale gets a lavish CG makeover as directors Byron Howard and Nathan Greno team up to tell the tale of a fair-haired beauty with long-flowing locks, a gallant hero with a heart of gold, and the evil witch who plots to keep these lovelorn innocents apart.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

What an amazing movie!!!  Modern animation and great character development but with a classic Disney feel.  I wish I'd seen the movie in theaters, but seeing it last night on Blu-ray was also awesome.  The animation was great, even though I don't really like the 3D, CGI movies.  But for this movie, it worked perfectly.

Unlike many of the Disney princess movies, Tangled had great character development.  Other princess movies barely introduce the characters before they've fallen in love with a total stranger and are facing adversity.  In this movie, Rapunzel and Flynn both get a lot of background and development, making them seem like much more 3-dimensional characters (no pun intended).  Even the sidekicks and villain had great personalities and depth.

The classic Disney touches were there as well, which is probably why the movie was amazing.  Alan Menken did the music, and Mandy Moore and Zachary Levi had great voices for Disney.  The story was also fun and exciting, with plenty of family-appropriate humor and romance.

It makes me sad that John Lassiter (head of Pixar and new head of Disney animation) has said that Tangled is the last princess movie Disney will make.  This movie was proof that people still love a classic romance from Disney, as long as there's great characters and a fun story.  It was in the theaters for months, not weeks, and was extremely popular, but according to Lassiter, people don't want princess movies anymore.  I think Tangled has proved him wrong.  It's fun, refreshing, and cute with good music and characters.  I'd recommend this movie to anyone and everyone, even strangers on a bus.  I'd somehow make conversation with them just to tell them to see it.  A+

Title:  Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief
Format:  Netflix
Genre:  Fantasy
Rating:  C

Synopsis (from Amazon.com):  Modern and mythical worlds collide in this thunderous fantasy-adventure starring Pierce Brosnan, Kevin McKidd and Uma Thurman as you’ve never seen them before! Percy Jackson is no ordinary teenager...he’s just learned he’s the son of Poseidon and is accused of stealing Zeus’ ­lightning bolt – the most powerful weapon ever created! With storm clouds brewing, Percy embarks on an incredible cross-country journey to prove his innocence, recover the bolt and prevent a war amongst the gods that could destroy our world!

 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

  

I hate it when they make books I love into movies, because they never get it right.  I think my friend Mary pretty much summed it up when she said that the studio must have put all their energy and money into hiring the A-list actors to play smaller roles, instead of focusing on getting good actors to play the main parts and sticking to the story.

I just don't understand why Hollywood feels the need to take something that is already great the way it is and change it.  The Lightning Thief is such a great book with interesting characters, an intense plot, and a satisfying conclusion.  Then Hollywood gets a hold of the movie rights, hires teenage actors that can't act to save their lives, and completely rewrite an already amazing story.  The whole scene with Hades is completely different from the book; it's so frustrating too, because it wasn't a good change.  It was pointless and uncalled for; the original scene was so much more intense and dramatic.  The movie version is comedic and stupid.  One of these days, the movie studios are going to wake up and realize that they're just alienating people when they make these huge changes to the stories they love.  Maybe if they had stuck to the original storyline and hired good actors, this movie would have been a success, rather than a flop.  C

Title:  Aeon Flux
Format:  Netflix
Genre:  Sci-Fi
Rating:  C+

Synopsis (from All Movie Guide):  Based on the animated series by Peter Chung, Aeon Flux imagines a future in which 99 percent of the world's population is killed through industrial disease, and the survivors live in a single city that, despite utopian appearances, is quite totalitarian. Disinclined to embrace any particular ideology outside of a hatred for Trevor Goodchild, the leader of the council that governs the walled city, hyper-sexualized assassin Aeon Flux seeks to bring about a revolution. Retaining the title character's trademark jet-black hair and sleek, revealing clothing, this film adaptation fleshes out the story behind the sexual and romantic tension between Aeon and Trevor.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here's a movie that proves you don't need to have a plot to get people to watch.  The whole point of this movie was to showcase Charlize Theron.  Skimpy or skin-tight outfits, constant close-ups on her face, and acrobatic movements are included to focus your attention on Theron's body so you'll never pay attention to the fact that there is almost no story to follow.

The little bit of story that exists is full of holes that never get filled.  From what I've read online, the animated series was pretty much the same.  One thing that they did change for the movie was to make Trevor Goodchild a much younger man, for which I will always be grateful.  Marton Csokas is a great actor, and even though this movie was awful, I have to give him (and Charlize Theron) some credit for still giving a good performance, despite having such a crappy (non-existent) script.  The only reason I'd probably ever watch this movie again is to watch him.   

I was also disappointed in Johnny Lee Miller, who portrayed the villain in this movie.  He's such a phenomenal actor, but I felt like he didn't even try to do a good job with this part.  He was over-the-top in some scenes, while practically monotone in others.  He could've at least put in a little effort, even if he did know that the movie was going to stink.  C+

Title:  17 Again
Format:  Netflix
Genre:  Comedy/Romantic comedy
Rating:  B

Leslie Mann so deserves the credit for making this movie better than average.  She's another one of those great character actors who doesn't seem to get enough acclaim for her roles.  Zac Efron was good too, but the plot's been done enough times that nothing about this movie seemed original or unique.  Maybe the geeky best friend romancing the geeky principal was kind of funny, but overall, the movie was just average.  B

Title:  27 Dresses
Format:  Netflix
Genre:  Romantic comedy
Rating:  B

Typical romantic comedy.  Katherine Heigl and James Marsden are funny, but they're characters have so little development that they're practically two-dimensional.  Heigl's co-star Judy Greer, who never gets the acclaim she deserves, steals every scene.  I would have preferred watching a whole movie about her character, rather than sit through another hackneyed, cliched story.  B

Title:  When In Rome
Format:  Netflix
Genre:  Romantic comedy
Rating:  B+

Another typical rom-com.  Full of embarrassing scenarios to make you cringe, over-the-top and unrealistic characters, and an extremely ridiculous plot line, When In Rome is no different than any other modern romantic comedy.  I really love Josh Duhamel and Kristen Bell, but they desperately need to get out of the rom-com rut, or they will never get out.  B+

Title:  Win a Date with Tad Hamilton!
Format:  Netflix
Genre:  Romantic Comedy
Rating:  A-

Synopsis (from All Movie Guide):  Famous Hollywood actor Tad Hamilton is trying to promote his new movie. His manager and his agent both convince him to participate in a dating contest in order to improve his bad-boy image. The contest is won by Rosalee Futch, an attractive young checkout girl who works at a Piggly Wiggly in West Virginia. When Tad ends up falling in love with her, he's willing to give up big-city life and move to small-town America. Meanwhile, her best friend and co-worker Pete is finally motivated to reveal his secret crush on her. Rosalee finds herself in the middle of a love triangle between her closest friend and a dream date.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I am honestly sick of writing about romantic comedies, and I still have around five more to review.  What else can be said about them that hasn't already been said?  Boy likes Girl; Girl likes other Guy; other Guy turns out to be not-so-great; Girl realizes Boy was right for her the whole time.  The only things that set this movie apart from all other rom-coms were Ginnifer Goodwin's role as best friend and her one-liners (hilarious!), and Nathan Lane as Duhamel's agent.  His role in the movie is small but memorable.  (And then there's the fact that Josh Duhamel's gorgeous).  Otherwise, Win a Date with Tad Hamilton is your standard rom-com.  A-