A whirlwind of film-going!

I've been such a slacker about updating the blog. We had a long Christmas Break, followed by a week shortened by snow - so my routine has been totally disrupted. However, over the vacation, I managed to see five movies - and here are my thoughts on them.

1. It's Complicated -
I'm a huge fan of the "romantic comedy." My personal DVD collection is filled with films like "Sleepless in Seattle," "Kate & Leopold," "When Harry Met Sally," and "Love Actually." So I was pretty excited to see this new film from Nancy Meyers (who was responsible for "The Holiday," "Something's Got to Give," and "The Parent Trap" remake), which portrays the story of a long-divorced couple (Meryl Streep and Alec Baldwin - both superb) who rekindle their relationship. Complicating things is Streep's new romantic prospect, Steve Martin (low key in the role and quite nice!).

When we saw it, the audience was filled with women "of a certain age," who roared with laughter for the whole film - as did we. And I love that Meyers doesn't go for the expected ending - but one that really suits the characters and the story. And John Krasinksi as the son-in-law really steals his scenes - as do Streep's pals Mary Kay Place, Rita Wilson and Alexandra Wentworth. A really fun, light, comedy.

2. Sherlock Holmes
The very next day after seeing It's Complicated we saw Sherlock Holmes. I really like Robert Downey Jr., and must admit to having a "thing" for Jude Law (even though I know he's a total cad in real life). So I was kind of fired up to see this. Two weeks later, I'm still not sure how I feel about it. Director Guy Ritchie has taken the traditional story and turned it on its ear. He's preserved the friendship between Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, and Holmes' deductive skills. But rather than a cerebral detective, we have an action hero. Holmes is seen bare-knuckle boxing, taking on physical challenges and shooting opponents. It makes for a wild ride; you can barely catch your breath. If I were to choose one adjective to describe the film, it would be BUSY. I almost feel like I need to see it again - things moved so fast and furious, that I know I missed a lot of dialogue and plot points.

Action fans will like it; RDJr fans will like it; Guy Ritchie fans will eat it up. But if you're looking for a traditional "Sherlock Holmes" film, go rent one of the Basil Rathbone versions.

3. Up in the Air
One dark, cloudy, cold Saturday afternoon, I was in the mood for a dark, cynical film - and this one totally filled the bill. George Clooney plays a man who is hired to go into companies and inform their staffs of lay-offs. His job is about to change thanks to technological innovations (his company wants to do lay-offs now via web-cams), and he takes a young staffer (Anna Kendrick) on the road to show her how he does his job. While they travel, he shares his philosophies of romance and business, all the while ignoring his own sensibilities and falling for another traveler (Vera Farmiga). Clooney is Clooney - his take on romance perfectly suited my dark mood. (Example: When Natalie - arguing in favor of marriage - gives the ultimate cliche ("you don't want to die alone, do you?") he counters with his realistic take ("everyone dies alone"). Clooney was terrific, and the scenes of real people reacting to the news that they've been laid off are gut-wrenching.

4. Avatar
THE most anticipated film of the holiday season, the one that has raked in the most box office bucks. I waited two weeks before I went to see it - not wanting to share my cinema time with screeching sci-fi fans. Smart move. I saw Avatar on a Sunday at 11 am - and was one of only 12 people in the theater. So I could sit middle center, which is apparently the best place to truly experience the Real3D effects. And WOW! Within minutes, I forgot the glasses and forgot that I was watching a 3D film - I was truly transported into the world of the planet Pandora, participating in the natives' fight for autonomy. You forget that you're watching computer generated characters - they come to life like "real" actors. I have to give James Cameron credit - this film is quite an achievement. I'm not sure I'm ready to see every film in 3D - it still seems a bit contrived to me - but I can see where it might work for some films. Especially blockbusters/epics like this.

Yes, the story is pretty cliched - the great white messiah comes to rescue the poor, helpless native people. We have to get back to our basic, natural roots -stop destroying our planet - save the planet or we will in turn be destroyed. But the visuals make it easier to swallow this and enjoy the film experience. Yes, it's long - nearly 3 hours - but I never felt like it stretched on - didn't find myself looking at my watch or longing for the ladies room. Definitely a film to see - and to see on the big screen.

5. The Young Victoria
I have friends who traveled to Paris in November, and saw this film on the plane. Strange, since it hadn't even been released in the US yet - but it was released nearly a year ago in Europe. My friends are not big movie goers, yet both raved about how much they enjoyed this. So I was pretty excited when it opened here in the Scenic City. I knew I probably need to see it the first weekend, because it probably wouldn't stay here long.

I loved it! I am a sucker for a period drama, and one with both historical and romantic leanings? Awesome! The film tells the story of the life of the young Queen Victoria, from the maneuvering that was behind her ascension to the throne through her romance and marriage to her cousin Prince Albert. The period detail is wonderful - the costumes alone are worth the price of admission - and the performance by Emily Blount is terrific. And although it's an epic film, it isn't epic in length (105 minutes). It easily is one of my favorites out of this bunch - and one of my favs for the year!

Review: (500) Days of Summer

(I actually saw this last week, but I keep forgetting to review it!)

This is the hot movie of the summer - and for good reason. It's a bittersweet love story - or an almost love story. I'm not giving anything away there: the movie begins by saying it's NOT a love story.

Tom and Summer are co-workers at a greeting card firm, and Tom falls hard for her almost immediately. She warns him that she doesn't believe in love, doesn't want to get serious, but he asks her out anyway. They seem to be moving towards a serious relationship, but something goes awry. I won't say any more! But we all have a Summer somewhere in our past - someone that we were sure was THE one, but they seem to have other ideas. We can all relate to the journey that Tom is on.

I thought it was a charming movie. I've admired the work of the two leads for years, and they have terrific chemistry. You might remember Joseph Gordon-Levitt from his costarring role on the tv show "Third Rock From the Sun" - and it's great to see how he's matured as an actor. He seems to be a rare success story - an adolescent actor who's made the transition to adult parts. Zooey Deschanel is always playing a kookie, off-beat character - she played Will Farell's girlfriend in "Elf" and her sister Emily stars in "Bones." The two actors have apparently been friends for years and finally found this film in which to co-star - excellent choice.

The action of the film follows the relationship as it builds, ebbs, and flows over the 500 days. But it's not chronological, which makes the story richer. You see the origin of one in-joke on one of their first dates, then see how thin it has worn by the 300th day. For the most part, the story is told from Tom's viewpoint, which colors our view of the relationship. Yet, when the end comes and the puzzle pieces are linked, we see how it fits.

This is a great summer "romance" film. It is a romantic film, but one that turns the convention on its ear. It's sweet, funny, poignant, charming. Not sure if it's a date film, but my solo girlfriends and I really liked it!

Review: Julie & Julia

I have been waiting for this film all summer. I mean, food, Meryl Streep, cooking, Nora Ephron - it's got all-time favorite written all over it! And I wasn't disappointed.

Nora Ephron - she of "When Harry Met Sally," "Sleepless in Seattle," and "You've Got Mail" - has taken two memoirs and successfully blended them into one narrative. Based on Julia Child's "My Life in Paris" and Julie Powell's "Julie & Julia," this dual narrative relates the story of Julia Child's journey from being the wife of a civil servant to being a foodie icon, juxtaposed against the story of writer Julie Powell's challenge to herself to cook every recipe in "Mastering the Art of French Cooking" in one year - and blog about her progress. Just as Julia blossoms as she taps into her love of food, so does Julie blossom as she channels Julia.

It's a terrific story. The older I get, and the more I see a broader spectrum of films, the more I appreciate Meryl Streep's talent. When I look at the roles she's had in the past year - "Doubt," "Mamma Mia" and now this - I am astounded at her range. She becomes Child in this film - giddy, larger than life, funny, animated. I absolutely love her chemistry with Stanley Tucci as husband Paul Child - they are adoring and sweet, spot on. Amy Adams is one of my favorite young actresses - and she doesn't disappoint here. I did find her half of the film a bit disappointing, however; it just doesn't measure up to the Julia part of the film.

My biggest recommendation if you go see this film: don't go hungry! The food is one of the stars - it all looks so yummy. I had to come home and dig out my own Child cookbook, and I may have to make the famous Boeuf Bourgignon this weekend - my heavens, it looked awesome!!

This is probably Ephron's first non-conventional romantic comedy, but she still shines through. A wonderful cast, a lovely story, beautiful food.... It all adds up to a wonderful film. She even includes Dan Ackroyd's classic SNL skit as Julia - it still makes me laugh so hard I cry!

PS - Look for my high school classmate, Marceline Hugot - she plays Julia's French tutor! Appropriate, since Marceline's dad is French and her mom was our HS French teacher!

Review: Disney's Up in Digital 3D

What a sweet movie! I had no idea it would be so poignant, moving, funny - an all around great flick.

"Up" is the latest from Disney/Pixar, and is available both in 3D and regular D. We decided to go with the 3D version - even though it cost $2.50 more! - and were so happy we chose that option. There are some really cute effects - and man, have they improved those glasses! Much easier to see the movie, even when you're wearing them over your own specs.

The story: a senior citizen is being forced into selling his home - which is in the middle of a high-rise construction site. Rather than leave behind the memories of his wife and their life together, he figures out how to lift the house out - and heads to South America, a place his wife had longed to visit. However, a local Explorer scout has stowed away - and together they embark on a series of adventures.

There were many subtle jokes that would fly over the head of a child, clearly aimed at the adult audience. For example, when Carl, Russell and Doug the dog are watching traffic and counting cars. Carl: There's a red one. Russell: There's a blue one. Doug: There's a gray one! (FYI - studies have shown that dogs don't see colors, everything looks gray to them). Even the cartoon portraits are a shout-out to the golden age of movies: Carl looks just like Spencer Tracy, and the villain Charles Muntz is the image of Errol Flynn. But there's also plenty to entertain the kids. Talking dogs (they wear collars that translate their barks into language), beautiful animation, some silly humor. And a great message about not wasting your opportunities in life, and the importance of not taking your loved ones for granted.

A great film "for kids of all ages." Just be sure to bring kleenex!

Review: My Life in Ruins

I admit it: I'm a sucker for a chick flick. There's something comforting and soothing about curling up with a bowl of popcorn and watching a movie that you know will not tax you mentally or emotionally. And I also admit to buying a lot of these movies when they come out on DVD, because many stand the test of repeated viewings quite well (ex: Kate and Leopold) - the perfect accompaniment for a Sunday afternoon nap.

So, I was looking forward to the first romantic comedy of the summer: My Life in Ruins, starring Nia Vardalos from My Big Fat Greek Wedding (another one that repeats quite well). Vardalos plays Georgia, a former classical history professor who finds herself unable to get a teaching job. So, she opts to be an English speaking guide in Greece, leading groups on one of those horrible bus tours of the must-see spots. The film follows her on one such outing, with a group that includes Richard Dreyfus, Rachel Dratch, and Harland Williams - as well as a hunky bus driver played by Alexis Georgoulis, pictured above.

Of course, romance ensues, as Georgia tries to recapture her joie de vivre - or "kefi," as the Greeks would say. And it all ends up tied with a pretty bow, just as you'd expect.

What I loved most about the movie was the gorgeous Greek scenery - and I'm not just talking about Georgoulis! Vardalos arranged for many of the scenes to be filmed on site, at the Acropolis and the Temple at Delphi in particular. They are fantastic - it made me want to book a Greek holiday immediately!

I also must say, stick with the film. The first 15 minutes or so really did suck - my friend and I were thinking that we wouldn't make it through the whole thing. But then it definitely picked up steam, became funnier and more poignant. So don't give up!

So if you're looking for a good date film, or just wanted to while away a rainy afternoon, this film would be a good choice.

Review: The Hangover

This movie is hilarious!! I saw it at an early Sunday matinee - and there was a large crowd. Everyone roared - as did I .

The premise is this: four buddies go to Las Vegas for one last crazy binge before Doug gets married. The action fades in on three of the guys awakening in their hotel room the next morning, unable to remember what they did or where Doug is. Their only clues are a baby they find in the closet, a tiger in the bathroom, and Stu the Dentist seems to be missing a tough. So, they set off to reconstruct their evening - and to find Doug before the wedding takes place.

It's rated R for a reason. A lot of "adult" language, violence, blood, sex and innuendo. Yet it's all handled in a very funny way. The cast is put together of hitherto second bananas - Ed Helms from the Daily Show, Bradley Cooper (who I loved as best friend Will in Alias), Justin Bartha (Riley Poole in the National Treasure movies), and Zach Galifianakis, who steals every scene he's in. They've got great chemistry together, and play off each other perfectly.

The storyline moves quickly, and it's all resolved quite satisfactorily. So if you want some cheap laughs, a roaring good time, check out the Hangover.

PS- the photo above kind of sums up how I felt this morning - although mine was a baseball hangover. Four excited, tense, stressful games in a row left me glad for the off day today!

Review: Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian

People who have traveled with me know that I am a geek about museums. Even on an intensely baseball-oriented trip like this coming week, I always manage to squeeze in some "cultuh." So, you know that one of my favorite recent films was "Night at the Museum," the story of a museum coming to life after hours. I loved it!

So I was pretty excited to see the sequel, "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian." Security guard Larry Daley is back, although he's moved into private industry. He's called into action when most of the exhibits from the Museum of Natural History are put into storage at the Smithsonian - and the tablet of Ahkmenrah goes along. (The tablet is the reason all the exhibits come to life at night.) Larry must liberate the tablet, all the while dealing with all the newly enlivened statues, paintings, and historical relics.

I liked the sequel almost more than the original! There isn't a lot of time spent on explication - so the action is non-stop. How fun to see Ivan the Terrible and Napoleon duking it out, "American Gothic" coming to life, and George Custer struggling with low self-esteem. But the film is stolen by two characters: Amy Adams as Amelia Earhart and Hank Azaria as Kahmunrah. When they are on screen, you don't see anyone else. Adams in particular is fantastic as Earhart - just the right blend of sexiness and "moxie." Ben Stiller is, well, Ben Stiller. Cute, funny, he carries the picture along.

It's a non-stop ride through the halls of the Smithsonian and American history. I can't wait to see it again, because I'm sure I missed all kinds of little details!

Review: X-Men Origins: Wolverine

The latest installment in the X-Men franchise was a sure slam dunk with me. First it stars one of my favorites, Hugh Jackman. Second, his dramatic foil is another fav, Liev Schreiber. Third, it's an X-Men movie, which means action! Perfect for a summer afternoon.

The story fills in the background of the character of Wolverine. I've never read any of the original comics - I've just followed the story through the film adaptations. I hadn't realized that Wolverine was immortal - but the story opens in 1845 with Logan as a child and follows him to the present day. Logan and his half-brother Victor Crede (aka Sabertooth) fight in many wars over the years, with Victor becoming more and more ruthless. When Logan steps away to try to find a quiet life, Victor kills his girlfriend - and Logan dedicates himself to revenge. Enter Colonel Stryker (seen in the other films) - he convinces Logan to undergo a radical medical procedure. Logan's skeleton is replaced by the experimental metal alloy adamantium, rendering him virtually indestructible. The result is havoc!

Jackman and Schreiver are terrific - they've got wonderful chemistry. The characters that surround them provide good support, and the story line is fun and full of action. A perfect "popcorn" movie - and another good addition to the X-Men series.

Review: Star Trek (2009)

In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit to having been a Trekkie (Trekker?) for decades. I got hooked on the original series in the mid-70s when it was shown in syndication on our local channel - and I've followed most of the ensuing series. Although I never lived in parents' basement, I did once attend a lecture by James Doohan (got his autograph even! I wonder where that is....) My favorite episode? " The Trouble with Tribbles." I liked Next Gen, got bored with DS9, and loved Enterprise (mainly due to Scott Bakula). So, I was pre-disposed to like the latest incarnation, JJ Abrams' "Star Trek."

And I wasn't disappointed. Wow! They had me hooked from the opening moment. The special effects are fantastic, the story is compelling and pulls you right in, and the cast is fantastic. The casting agents deserve an award! They didn't try to clone the original cast, but instead caught their essence. Chris Pine as Kirk captures all his brashness - and sexiness; Zoe Saldana as Uhura is sexy, yet smart; I loved Simon Pegg as Scotty; Karl Urban is terrific as McCoy; the actors playing Sulu and Chekhov are terrific. A special thumbs up to Zachary Quinto as Spock. A fantastic capturing of Spock's character: torn between being human and Vulcan, trying to choose between two very different cultures.

The story itself is compelling: a group of Romulans (led by an unrecognizable Eric Bana) travels thru time to punish Spock for not stopping the destruction of their world. That's probably overly simplistic, I realize, but that'll get you started. There are all kinds of sidebars - the childhoods of Spock and Kirk; how the crew came together; how Kirk became a captain at such a young age. I love how they get Leonard Nimoy into the story, too.

Abrams did a great job of including some of the ST mythology. At my showing, people actually cheered when Bones said, I'm a doctor not a physicist"! Pegg's Scotty stole every scene - which Doohan often did. There's even a throwaway mention of "Admiral Archer's dog" (a salute to "Enterprise")

The best way to sum up this film is to use the words of my movie-going buddy. It is rare for Holly to be effusive about a film - she usually says, that was good or that sucked. As soon as the credits began, she turned to me and said, "That was f---ing awesome." I couldn't agree more!

Review: Milk

Frankly, if it wasn't nominated for an Oscar, I don't think Milk would have played here in my provincial city. My buddy and I went to the Sunday matinee - there were only 4 other people in the theater. Granted, it was Super Bowl Sunday, but it was a remarkable contrast to last Sunday's packed screening of Slumdog Millionaire at the same time.

It's too bad for the puritans and footballers - because they are missing an incredible performance by Sean Penn. The film is based on the life of Harvey Milk, the so-called "Mayor of Castro Street" in San Francisco. Milk was the first openly gay office holder in California, a ground-breaking "community organizer" who changed the face of that state's politics. The film covers his political career, a promising career cut short by a bullet.

It was a great history lesson. I was only in junior high at the time, so I wasn't a part of the political arena. I'd forgotten about Anita Bryant, and how she almost single-handedly rolled back any civil rights gains that gays had attained. It seemed like it would happen, until activists on the grass-roots level in major cities began rallying and fighting the movement. Milk was one of the agitators in California, using his position on the SF Board of Supervisors to publicize his efforts. While winning supporters, he also alienated one of the other Supervisors, Dan White. White was in the process of being relieved of his duties when he took a loaded gun into City Hall, and shot and killed both Milk and the mayor. (I'd also forgotten that was the origin of the infamous "Twinkie Defense," with White's lawyers claiming he was nutty at the time due to eating too much junk food).

As I said at the top, Sean Penn is phenomenal in the role. He totally disappears into the character; at one point, I shook myself and had to remind myself that this was Penn. How he can not win the Oscar for best actor is beyond me. (Interestingly, my buddy said that although she loved the film, she never was able to see beyond Penn, never really bought him as Milk). The supporting cast is also wonderful. Especially noteworthy are Emil Hirsch (as Clete Jones, who went on to found the NAMES Quilt Project), Josh Brolin (as Dan White), my pal from HS Musical Lucas Grabeel, and the other young actors who play Milk's coterie. And I have to separate out James Franco. Franco has really progressed from his early "pretty boy" roles into a really good actor. He plays Milk's partner Scott with such sweetness and depth. Really terrific.

I really loved this film. It brought the times and the people to life in a real and unflinching way, helping those unfamiliar with those times to truly understand how far we've progressed. And yet, we still have a long way to go. Milk's message - to put a personal face on the gay rights movement, to ease the fears of the ignorant by making them see how "normal" non-heterosexuals are, to take the fight to a personal level - these are things we need to continue to do.

Review: Slumdog Millionaire

When I walked into the movie theater on Sunday afternoon to see Slumdog Millionaire, I was deliberately ignorant about the film. I knew it was being universally praised by film critics, and that it was raking in the awards. But I didn't want to be colored by those assessments - I wanted to see it fresh.

The trailers and brief reviews I'd allowed myself led me to believe I was walking into the "feel good" film of the year. So I was unprepared for the gritty and grim opening - a young man being tortured in a jail cell. I was apprehensive, but decided to be patient. Thankfully! The story began to unfold: a young man, raised in the slums of Mumbai, is a contestant on the Indian version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire." The host cannot understand how a barely literate "slumdog" has reached the highest level and is about to go for the 20 million rupee final prize. His torturers - who are actually policemen - want to know how he knew the answers. Jamal begins to tell his story: each question on the program has a key in his past, and we leap back through his childhood and adolescent as these touchstones are uncovered.

The film is incredibly well cast. Three sets of actors play Jamal, his brother Salim, and their friend (and love interest) Latika, at three stages of their lives. The youngest kids aren't precocious or stiff - they're natural and quite believable. (I understand they actually came from the slums of Mumbai, which is amazing). There is no one in the cast who the average American filmgoer will recognize (I've seen a few "Bollywood" films and still didn't see a familiar face). But this anonymity allows you to focus on the story, to really involve yourself in the lives of these young people.

And it IS a feel good film (I don't think I'm spoiling anything by saying there's a happy ending). If you go, be sure to stay for the closing credits, which feature an incredibly infectious song (nominated for an Oscar) - I put it on my iPod last night, and would love to sing along - but I don't know Hindi!

I'm not sure it's THE best film of the year (I haven't seen Milk yet), but it is definitely in my top five. A lovely story, beautifully filmed and directed.

Review: Benjamin Button

I decided to devote a large-ish portion of my Sunday afternoon to seeing "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," the new fantasy/parable/romance starring Cate Blanchett and Brad Pitt (pictured above). The film claims to be based on a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald. Actually, it bears little resemblance to the original story, starting with the length - the story is 5 pages long, the film is nearly 3 hours long! The plot of the film version is this: in 1918 New Orleans, a woman dies giving birth to a "deformed" baby. Her distraught husband leaves the baby on the steps of an old age home, where it is taken in by Queenie, the caretaker. But it seems Benjamin isn't deformed - he is born an old man, and ages in reverse. The film follows his life as he becomes younger, and the love of his life ages in the normal way. They finally "meet in the middle," have a few happy years, and then the age difference takes effect again.

Pitt spends nearly the first two hours in old age makeup. (What struck me is how much the old Benjamin looks like the current Robert Redford! Scary.) So, that means the film is 2/3 over before we see the "hot" Brad Pitt, but when he shows up - WOW! The camera loves this guy - he was sizzling. And his final appearance as a very young teenager perfectly captures Pitt's early days on film - he steps back in time. Pitt is very effective in the role - even if it is makeup-enhanced most of the way. Blanchett is terrific as Daisy - she ages so well from the ingenue to old woman. She is strinkingly beautiful as the young dancer - and she and Pitt make a gorgeous couple.

I liked the film - it never seems long. The story is sweet, and moves along pretty quickly. It never becomes sappy or maudlin - even though you basically know how it will end. Pitt and director Fincher go a little heavy on the New Orleans/Katrina stuff, but... If you've got the time to invest in a nearly three hour, light film, this would be a good choice.

Review: Doubt

I find it ironic that in this, the happiest of seasons, it is hard to find a fun movie. By that I mean something beyond the silly insanity of Jim Carrey or Adam Sadler. or an animated "family" film. A movie that will amuse and touch you.

When looking at the listings, there is a preponderance of "serious" films. I realize that studios release these films right before the end of December, not for the box office business but to allow them to be considered for Academy Awards. So if you are a film buff, this is bonanza time. If you're a lover of movies, but not an NPR listener, it can be difficult to muster excitement for a trip to the multiplex.

Of all the serious, Oscar-buzz-worthy films out there right now, one I was most interested in seeing was "Doubt." Featuring Philip Seymour Hoffman and Meryl Streep, I knew this would be an acting tour-de-force, two incredible talents squaring off. And I wasn't disappointed in the result.

The story is this: in 1964, a hip priest is accused of "inappropriate" behavior with an altar boy, the accuser being the principal of the Catholic grade school. Sister Aloysius is convinced Father Flynn is guilty, and molds the "evidence" to make her case. Their confrontations are incredible - and you leave the theater full of doubts yourself. It could appear that he's guilty, and yet...

As I said, the acting is superb. Both lead actors are worthy of Oscar consideration - as is Amy Adams, the young nun who brings the initial charges. I went to Catholic school for my first three years, and Adams perfectly captures those innocent young nuns thrown into the classroom. My own teachers couldn't have been more than 19 or 20, fresh off the boat from Ireland. No wonder they often relied upon corporal punishment to control us - they had no other examples than the bitter older nuns - like Streep's Sister Aloysius.

I love the contrast that's shown between the lives of the priests and nuns. The priests sit around the rectory, being served a steak dinner and sucking down scotch, while the nuns are eating 3rd rate beef with a glass of milk. The women have no power - when the sisters have their suspicions about Father Flynn, they have no one to turn to - they require a sympathetic male to champion their cause. Personally, I think this kind of hypocrisy is why you see so few nuns these days!

I really enjoyed this film - I wasn't depressed or upset, as I suspected I might be. The director/writer perfectly captures those crazy pre-Vatican II days - when it became obvious that the Church need to make changes, even if it irked some of the older conservative elements. It's amazing to see the layered habits the nuns wore, which I remember so distinctly. Or to see how priests and nuns were nearly forbidden to mingle.

Fantastic performances, a serious thought-provoking story.

Review: Australia

Let me get this out of the way immediately. The "sexiest man alive"? Hell, yes. As far as I'm concerned, Hugh Jackman should start spelling his first name "H-O-T"

Hot's - er, Hugh's - new film is called "Australia." It's Baz Luhrmann's epic tale of Australia in the late 1930 - early 40s. A prim Englishwoman, Lady Sarah Ashley, travels to Australia, specifically to the remote Northern Territory, to find her husband, who has been trying to run a cattle station called Faraway Downs. She arrives to find him dead, murdered under suspicious circumstances. To see his dream through, she ends up helping drove a herd of cattle to Darwin for sale to the Army. The cattle drive is led by "the Drover," (Jackman), an itinerant cattleman with tons of charisma. Of course, they fall in love while trying to avoid the villainous Neil Fletcher. The story continues through the early days of WWII, with Darwin's bombing by the Japanese. Throw in the story of the "Stolen Generation," the generations of young Aboriginal children stolen from their parents by the government, which was attempting to breed the "blackness" out of them -- well, now you can understand why the movie is nearly three hours long!

Luhrmann has developed a very distinctive style. At times he's over the top - lots of sweeping long shots, quirky little details, sometimes almost cartoon-like additives, tight close-ups on his leads' faces, and a fantastic musical score. Although that style is perfect for films like "Simply Ballroom" or "Moulin Rouge," I'm not sure if it really works in an epic like "Australia" is meant to be.

And yet, I must admit to pulling many kleenex out during the film. It is an epic story - and I'm a lover of epics. It is at times "Gone With the Wind," "From Here to Eternity," and "The Cowboys." If nothing else, it's clear that Luhrmann also loves the epic - and loves his native land. The land itself could be a co-star, so lovingly and breathtakingly depicted.

So, do I recommend it? Yes! Even though it was nearly three hours long, I only glanced at my watch twice - and made it through without one bathroom trip!! (Be sure to abstain from food and drink for at least an hour beforehand) Jackman and Kidman were terrific - and terrific together. The young actor who narrates and plays Nulla, Brandon Walters, is also good - he has the most beautiful, expressive eyes. And Luhrmann must have hired every Aussie character actor available - Jack Thompson, Bryan Brown, even David Gulpilil (who I'll always remember from the first Aussie film I ever saw, "Walkabout.")

So, resign yourself to the fact that this film will be your entire afternoon or evening, go light on the snacks beforehand, get the kleenex ready - and enjoy! A perfect film for a cold, rainy winter's afternoon.

Review: Quantum of Solace

Another day off, another movie matinee! Tuesday, we caught the newest installment in the James Bond oeuvre, Quantum of Solace. Up front, I will admit to not being a big Bond fan. Yes, I've seen nearly all of the movies - and I do have a favorite Bond (Pierce Brosnan). But I've never been one to run off to the theater as soon as the newest opens. I usually wait a few weeks and then take it in. Which was the exact scenario for this latest film.

It's basically a sequel to the previous film, Casino Royale. Bond (Daniel Craig) is mourning the death of his babe in that film, and is out for revenge. He traces the perpetrators to a mysterious organization called Quantum, which seems to be running the world. Along for the ride - and to help him - is Camille (Olga Kurylenko), who was a victim of one of the organization's puppets. Okay, it's actually probably a lot more complex than that summary, but that's the best I can do in this small space.

Suffice it to say, there are tons of car chases, tons of man-to-man combat, a little sex and lot of innuendo, and a few vodka martinis. We also get a lot of psychoanalyzing of Bond - what motivates him, what his goals are, etc. Clearly, Daniel Craig's Bond is a Bond for the new century.

Unfortunately the director relies heavily on handheld camera work for many of the action scenes. While it plummets you into the middle of the action, I found it very difficult to follow who was who, to figure out who was winning. (It's also nauseating to try to follow that type of camera work, my chief peeve about that style) I would have loved to have had the glass concession on set - they must have used every piece of glass in the country. (It's surprising that more of the combatants don't suffer from severe lacerations). The locations are lovely, as is standard in Bond films.

I'm not warming to Craig's Bond, though. I'm not sure why - is he not pretty enough for me? Is he too monosyllabic? Is it his seeming lack of chemistry with every female costar except Judi Dench's M? Am I just tired of the franchise? I'm really not sure.

So, if you go into the theater expecting mindless action and violence, you'll love this film. If you're looking for more....you'll be disappointed.

Review: Twilight

In general, I'm a big vampire fan. Not the scary, Nosferatu-type vampire. The sexy, Angel-Spike-type vampire. Face it - a vampire is the ultimate bad boy. A mortal peril to both your heart and your aorta.

So, when a friend recommended Stephenie Meyer's book, Twilight, I was intrigued. It had the seemingly winning combination of vampires and romance. I picked up a copy - and couldn't put it down. I found it so compelling - the story, the characters. The female protagonist, Bella Swan, appeals to every current and former angsty-teenager. And the male protagonist, the vampire Edward Cullen, well, he's swoon-worthy. I quickly ran through all four books in the series - although I found them less compelling as they progressed, and the final book dragged dreadfully in the middle.

I was quite anxious to see the film adaptation, which opened this past weekend. My buddies and I held out until Monday. The public schools are still in session, so we figured it would be a good opportunity to see it without hoards of screaming teenage girls. And since there were only a total of 5 people for the matinee - well, it was a smart choice.

Having loved the books, I worried how the adaptation would be. I shouldn't have fretted. It's a very faithful adaptation, and the screenwriter has incorporated much of the book's dialogue. For those who've been living without People or ET, here's the basic story. Bella goes to live with her father in the small town of Forks, Washington, after her mother remarries. She feels lost and lonely at first, until she spots the mysterious Cullen family in the school cafeteria. She is particularly taken with Edward, who seems totally repulsed by her. Well, it turns out they are a family of "vegetarian" vampires - forgoing humans and feeding instead on the wild animals in the Washington countryside. Of course, Bella and Edward fall in love - the ultimate forbidden love. Sigh.

I thought the film was very well cast. They were quite faithful to the books' descriptions and characterizations - although Edward wasn't as hot as I had pictured him! The Washington countryside is beautiful, breathtaking even, and the director really captured the dark murky atmosphere of the book. My one complaint is the same I have with the books - the love we see is all angst and sadness (I'd die without you...) - you don't see much of a joyful love, which is sad.

I'm not sure if reading the books is a prerequisite for enjoying the film. I was glad for some of the backstory that would have made the film ten hours long! But I also could pick up on some foreshadowing of what will happen in the next films. Because, yes, this will be a film franchise. The opening weekend box office was over $70 million - the largest film opening by a female director.

So, if you like this genre, if you like a romantic tale, go see Twilight. And if you want to sound hip to pop culture and the latest manias, see it also!

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner

I guess that it was inevitable, in light of this week's historic election of Barack Obama as the first African-American President, that Turner Classic Movies would pull out the landmark 1967 film, "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner." (Starring: Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn and Sidney Poitier - as well as Hepburn's niece, Katherine Houghton - all pictured above) It was actually a funny coincidence - we have this film in our library collection, and brought it home this weekend to watch!

It's really interesting to watch the film today. Of course, Poitier is referred to constantly as a "Negro" and even (gasp) "colored." But the basic story - liberal parents forced to confront their subconscious prejudices when their daughter decides to marry an African American - still rings true today. I was struck by several scenes. For example, Poitier confronts his father, and says things will never change until their generation - those who can only see themselves as a "colored man and not a man" - dies. Or when Tracy asks Poitier what future he sees for their child - Poitier says that his GF predicts it'll be President of the US (with a rainbow colored administration), but he'd settle for Secretary of State. Hmm...a little be prescient, eh?

It's also poignant to watch, knowing that Spencer Tracy died just 17 days after the end of filming. Hepburn - his lifelong love - propped him up and kept him going for the duration of filming, probably knowing this would be his last film. The scenes where Tracy talks about his love for his wife - wow, I was bawling - and you can see that the emotions on Hepburn's face were much more real for her.

It's a film that stands up today - not only as a record of our country at that moment in our history, but as a milepost for how far we've traveled since. And it's amazing to think that Obama's parents were experiencing this same scene almost as this film was debuting. A white girl from Kansas and an African? Absurd....

Review: Burn After Reading

Yesterday, I finally got back to the movies! I've been trying to get to a film for weeks - but something always seemed to come up to prevent me. I was tired, or my friend Susan had something come up, or I was uninspired by the choices. So yesterday, as a treat since I was stuck working half the day, my buddies and I caught the new film by the Coen Brothers. And considering I was in a feisty, negative state of mind after having my weekend blown by work, it was a good choice!

In this dark - well, black - comedy, John Malkovich is a CIA operative who is fired. He decides to write his "mem-whas" - which his wife downloads when trying to get their financial statements with an eye toward divorce. The CD is left at the local gym, where Brad Pitt and Frances McDormand find it. They try to cash in by blackmailing the operative, who is unaware that wifey is sleeping with George Clooney and wants a divorce.

This is a pretty simplistic summary! As is typical in the Coens' films, there are so many layers and under-plots, well, they simply can't be explained. They get some wonderful performances from all their actors - especially Tilda Swinton and George Clooney (one of my pals thought he overacted, but I loved his role). And a special award needs to be created for the absolute theft Brad Pitt does of every scene he's in. He is so funny in his role as a totally clueless personal trainer - I sometimes forget what a gifted actor he is.

So, a funny, funny film - but very dark. And very bloody, of course - a great deal of shocking violence. Very nuanced performances all the way around.

Review: Mamma Mia

I have a confession: I am a huge fan of ABBA. I can't help it - when I hear the opening strains of any of their cheezy pop songs, I find my feet moving and suddenly I'm singing along. Actually, I challenge anyone to listen to "Dancing Queen" or "Mamma Mia" and not find yourself smiling and singing along. So I knew that I would love the new movie musical "Mamma Mia," and I was not disappointed. I smiled and sang along (in my head) the whole way.

The story: 20-year-old Sophie is about to marry on the small Greek island on which she lives with her single mom, Donna. Sophie is desperate to meet her father, and discovers in her mother's diary that there are three candidates. She invites them to the wedding, sure she will recognize him immediately. And so they arrive: Sam the architect, Bill the globetrotting adventurer, and Harry the businessman. The story follows as Sophie tries to figure out who is her dad, and her mom tries to figure out her feelings for them.

The cast is fantastic - and they look like they are just having a ball. (Do you blame them? Spending weeks on a gorgeous Greek island singing ABBA songs - what's not to love?!) Meryl Streep and Pierce Brosnan have terrific chemistry (although he was clearly not cast for his singing voice - he's pretty weak). Christine Baranski and Julie Walters are terrific as her side kicks, and I found Colin Firth and Stellan Skarsgard charming as the other two suitors.

The real find is Amanda Seyfried as Sophie. I'm familiar with her work on "Big Love," on which she plays the conflicted daughter in a polygamous family. She is sweet, sexy, and charming in the role - this could be a real break-out star.

And of course the other star is the musical score. Yeah, there are holes in the story (Streep is way too old, and the time line seems screwy at times), but you don't have time to ponder it because here comes another ABBA tune! The songs have been well incorporated into the plot - or maybe the plot has simply been constructed around the tunes - but, whatever, it works!

A fun, infectious score - a charming, hot cast - beautiful cinematography - I can't wait to see it again!

Review: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Catching up on my recently viewed films! School ended Thursday, and I snuck out to an afternoon matinee to celebrate. And I chose the new Indy film.

I'm a big fan of the whole Indiana Jones series. I remember seeing the first one, and falling in love with Harrison Ford (of course, the crush had already started with the Star Wars films!) I just loved the old movie matinee feel of the series and the stories were rapid fire and really fun. My least favorite was the second in the series - "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" - it was way too dark. I think the first was my favorite, though.

My best advice about this fourth installment - do not try to understand the plot. My buddies and I looked at each other as the credits ran by, and literally said, "What in the hell was that about?!!" Seriously, just accept that it makes no sense and enjoy the ride. Ford is terrific, although it kills me to admit he's looking a bit old; and young Shia LaBoeuf is charming as Mutt. It's great to see Karen Allen back as Marion, and Cate Blanchett and Ray Winstone give serviceable performances as the villains.

The real stars are, of course, the special effects. They're pretty amazing. And like "Raiders," the story is basically one long chase scene capped by a spectacular scene of fx. So, go with no expectations of understanding the plot, but high expectations of a fun ride.