Dessert Island DVDs

Over at Fandango Groovers Movie Blog they're having an event discussing the eight DVDs you'd want if you were stranded on a desert island (and had the ability to play DVDs). I didn't find out about it in time to participate, so I thought I'd just list my DESSERT island DVD list. I just watched Waitress again recently and it's left me with a super urge to make pie. So in no particular order, here are my favorite movies with food, particularly dessert.

1. Waitress
The story is pretty simple, a woman with an abusive, controlling husband has an epic talent for making pie. She works at a dinner and designs a new pie every day. To escape the drudgery of her life, we often get to see the machinations in her head and they always leave me hungry. Marshmellow Mermaid Pie makes me feel like a kid. Mmmmm...pie.

2. Groundhog Day
There's a scene after Bill Murray realizes he's not going to get to leave the town when he throws caution to to the wind and starts eating everything at the diner, and stuffs a whole piece of cake with pink icing in his mouth at once. In one of the "making of" features I recall for this movie, he actually ate the piece of cake EVERY time, for something like 20 takes. Andie McDowell watched him eat it and felt sick herself, but it always makes me want pink icing (and to wipe the icing off his face).

3. Gone with the Wind
After Scarlett finally marries Rhett Butler, he takes her to New Orleans for their honeymoon, and after years of near starvation, she lives it up, eating all she can. The line Rhett throws back at her always pisses me off, "if you don't stop eating so much, you'll get as big as Mammy, and I'll divorce you." It's said in jest, but for the food that passes by in that scene, I'd probably divorce Rhett.

4. Notting Hill
"Apricots soaked in honey, which actually stops them tasting of apricots and just tastes of honey, but nonetheless, they're yours if you want them". - Hugh Grant trying to offer food to Julia Roberts. He kind of makes me want to try apricots in honey, but it's his rambling about the food he has to offer always makes him more real and endearing.

5. Chocolat
What's not to like about the food in this movie? All kinds of chocolate, drinks, sweets, savory, etc. It's definitely a dessert island DVD. Just watching it makes you want to break any rules just to have some more chocolate.

6. Julie and Julia
There's a scene where she casually makes a chocolate creme pie, and it always looks like pudding, but that's okay, cause I like pudding. Most of the movie is about the savory dishes Julia Child was really well known for, but there are a few moments even on a dessert island that food would be good.

7. Fried Green Tomatoes
The Whistle Stop Cafe serves all kinds of food, and there's a great food fight scene where Mary Stuart Masterson and Mary Louise Parker (I couldn't keep them straight for years!) cover each other in flour, berries, chocolate frosting, and tomatoes, and even with the mess, I still want to eat there. I love Fried Green Tomatoes too, perhaps they should be allowed on my dessert island.

8. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
The ultimate dessert island movie, it practically IS a dessert island. When they first get into the room with the chocolate river (where they lose Augustus), I always want to be one of those little kids. And lickable wallpaper. The fact the the movie spawned its own candy line makes this top pick for movies on a dessert island.

What would be on your dessert island?

"Nobody wins with a headbutt": Paul Blart

I really didn't think I would like Paul Blart: Mall Cop because it looked like all the funny moments were in the commercials (and they were) and I thought most of the jokes were just funny as sight gags (also true) but somehow it all worked out to be a funny movie with a lot of heart. Kevin James (who was also sweet and funny in Hitch) is Blart, riding around on his Segway guarding a mall. He'd rather be in the NJ State Troopers, but physically can't finish the exam. When a group of criminals attempt to take over the mall and steal all the credit card info, it's left to Blart to stop them. He mostly falls on them, trips them or surprises them into unconsciousness, but of course, in the end, saves the day. Totally predictable, but nevertheless enjoyable. Jayma Mays (from "Glee") plays the object of his affection and one of the hostages. 2.5 of 5 lambs/stars

Where do you love: New York or Paris?

I loved Paris, Je T'aime (Paris, I love you) when I saw it on DVD a few years ago. Here is a short review I did back then. So when the newer version, New York, I Love You, was made it put into sharper focus, what I particularly liked about the Parisian version that didn't come through in New York. First, the main focus of the first movie is the city of Paris. Every short story takes place in a different part of Paris, famous or not, but dramatically Paris. The city itself is the character that exists in each story (they embraced the cliche!). This was not true for New York. Yes, they had Coney Island and taxi cabs and a scene in Central Park, and the diamond district. But that was about all that make it specifically NYC. The diversity of people could have been described as typically NYC, but that's a stretch. Second, there just weren't as many stories. Paris had about 15 different short stories, with some actors crossing over a tiny bit. New York has about 6 different stories, so there is a lot less to love (though it's only 15 minutes shorter). And third, the stories weren't self-contained moments, done when they're done. In Paris, each story could have been a short film unto itself; each story begins and ends, and along with the story that was told, you were acutely aware it takes place in Paris. In New York, each story is drawn out into small bits that interweave, though aren't necessarily related. I liked the format for Paris Je T'aime much better. There were a few stories in NYC that I did like - Bradley Cooper jumping into random cabs that would become other stories was kind of a funny bit that linked the stories. And I loved Cloris Leachman and Eli Wallach walking to Coney Island chatting away.  Natalie Portman as a devout Jewish woman who works in the diamond district and is about to get married and disappear into the culture was interesting, but didn't really go anywhere. Overall, it definitely didn't live up to Paris, but New York, I Love You could stand on it own as a decent film. 3 of 5 stars/lambs (4.5 for Paris)

Paper Heart: Not my kind of funny

There are movies that you know the right kind of person would find hilarious, that you can see would make a whole bunch of people laugh, even if it's not the kind of thing you find interesting or particularly funny. Paper Heart is one of those movies. Charlyne Yi - I remembered her most from Knocked Up - drives this mockumentary about a real topic, whether Yi can understand love. She travels with a film crew and interviews people in Vegas and then around the country about love, what it means to them, how to find it, how to keep it, etc. She also interviews her friends about whether or not she's capable of love. This was the first place the movie lost me - all her friends are pretty famous and mostly from the cast of Knocked Up. That seemed odd. Then she meets Michael Cera (comedic genius/one-note monkey?) and they hit it off and start dating. This also happened in real life, so it's hard to figure out what they're mocking and what is real. The best part of the movie is the new ending they put together using a moving diorama like we made in middle school. It's hilarious and worth making it through the film. The rest of it is ho-hum and not really my sense of humor, but I can appreciate that it's potentially really funny (I also didn't like Best in Show, which I'm told is very funny). 2.5 lambs/stars

The Edge of Love: Review

I don't recall having seen this movie advertised in theaters or publicized much, and that really should have been a clue that it wasn't for me. Also, I'm not a big fan of Kiera Knightly (though she's becoming a better actress, slowly) and don't like Sienna Miller at all. The reason I saw it is because of the guys: Cillian Murphy and Matthew Rhys (from Brothers & Sisters). Rhys plays poet Dylan Thomas and is married to Miller, but lost his virginity to Knightly back in Wales. They're all in London now trying to survive the Blitz, and Knightly meets soldier-boy Murphy and they "fall in love and get married". That's in quotes because it's what is supposed to happen, but Knightly's only marrying him to spite Rhys whom she can't have. There's lots of drama. Rhys has been put to work, because he's a poet, making propaganda films for the military. He hates his job and makes it clear to everyone around him that it's beneath his talent (which hasn't really become too famous yet). Miller is a nut-job crazy woman who is jealous and mean but then totally loving, and cheats with other men. Since Rhys is in love with Knightly anyway, he doesn't much care that his wife is skanky. However, once Knightly gets pregnant (on her wedding night) she returns with the crazy Thomases to Wales. They wait out the war barely scrapping by, but Miller is making money off being skanky now, and since everyone gets to eat no one pays attention. We see glimpses of the atrocities Murphy is going through, that make him crazy when he gets home. Lots more fighting ensues, with some crazy violence, but all ends fine as we know it must because Dylan Thomas is a famous poet. Apparently the war gave him lots of things to write about later. The movie is not good. All except Murphy are supposed to have Welsh accents, and only Rhys (because he actually is Welsh by birth) can carry it off. Knightly can't about 80% of the time, you totally forget she's supposed to be a childhood friend of Rhys because she has a British accent and he doesn't. And Miller brings in her odd American twang from time to time, but she does a better job maintaining the Welsh. The acting is fine, but the script really just goes in circles of odd love pairings to the point where you're sure the writers just wanted Knightly and Miller to get it on. Not worth your time. If you're surfing the Netflix Watch Instantly, check out Botany of Desire instead and you'll have a more pleasant 90 minutes. 2 of 5 stars/lambs

Who knew ABC would win?

I watch a lot of TV. If you're a regular reader of my blog you can attest to my love for TV. I had an odd thought the other day wondering which network I watch the most. To explain why my odd thought occurred, I was explaining to someone that In Plain Sight was returning to USA (Wednesdays at 10) and thought, "Wow, I really like the shows on USA, I bet that's the channel I watch the most," but of course it isn't, so here are the tallies:

ABC: Castle, Lost, Cougar Town, Ugly Betty, Grey's Anatomy, Private Practice, Desperate Housewives and Brothers & Sisters

AMC: Mad Men

CBS: How I Met Your Mother, The Big Bang Theory, CSI: Miami, NCIS: Los Angeles, The Good Wife, The Mentalist, Numb3rs

Fox: Human Target, Bones, Fringe, Glee

Fx: Damages, Justified (both are new additions to my own watching pattern)

Lifetime: Project Runway, Drop Dead Diva

NBC: Chuck, Parenthood, Friday Night Lights

TNT: Saving Grace, The Closer

USA: In Plain Sight, Royal Pains, Burn Notice, Psych (which might be over soon), White Collar,
used to watch Monk, but that just ended for good


So I guess ABC is the winner. I actually found that surprising, but some of them are my favorite shows. Also ABC has the best online viewing after the fact. Hulu is good for NBC and Fox, but CBS is abysmal. I think what I like about the shows on USA over the other channels is that since so few people I know also watch them, it kinda feels like they're shows just for me. I'm sure more people watch them (or they wouldn't be in multiple seasons) but they're not really part of the zeitgeist or appointment TV so I don't have to forgo something else to watch them. As always, I'm sure I forgot something good that will return in the not too distant future. As you can tell, I don't watch much reality TV, mostly just Project Runway. However, thanks to the Demented Encyclopedia podcast and the Blog Cabins Survivor updates, I keep track of what's going on. If you feel the need to know what's going on without actually watching the shows, check them out.

Commentary is good...

I've always enjoyed the comments people post on my blog (except for the few in another language or the spam type of course), but I've never really thought about boosting my comments. A fellow LAMB member is hosting a contest, which I really like, and I thought I'd share something about it, hoping to add Marshall as one of my followers, but we'll see. Here's his scoop at Marshall and the Movies

If you leave a thoughtful and relevant comment that contributes to intelligent discussion of movies or any other topic I bring up here, you will be entered into a random drawing for a prize. The more you comment, the better chance you have of winning. My hope is that you will be get in a habit of commenting that extends beyond the end of the contest.

What is the prize? Well…

The winner will receive their choice of one of the 10 Best Picture nominees from 2009.

The drawing will be, as I said earlier, completely random. I’ll probably write notecards for each comment and draw one out of a hat. But, if you are interested in improving your chances, I have a few little ways for you to improve your odds.

Fellow bloggers, if you post a link to this contest on your own blog, I will give you two extra entries.

Non-bloggers and other friends, if you refer a first-time commenter to “Marshall and the Movies” and they mention you by name, I will give you three extra entries.

PS - Yes, I'm totally using this plug as another post to boost my numbers, sue me.

Documentaries: Botany of Desire and Good Hair

I haven't seen a lot of documentaries in the last year. Usually I'll see one or two of the Oscar nominated documentaries, but this year I hadn't seen any. However, in the last couple of weeks, I've seen two. Good Hair is an exploration of all the lengths women, mostly black women, go to in order to have "good hair." Chris Rock decided to discover why his daughters might think they don't have good hair. He interviews famous black people about their own hair, including Al Sharpton, Nia Long, Ice-T, Raven-Symone, and Maya Angelou among others. He also travels to quite a few hair salons and talks to hair stylists about what it takes to have long, smooth hair, what it costs and where the hair comes from. As a blond, white woman I admit, I didn't really have any idea what it took to create different styles of hair. I saw Chris Rock interviewed on Oprah when he was initially promoting the movie and really wanted to see the whole thing. Rock builds the story around a competition between stylists at a huge "hair show" in Atlanta. As a documentary, it builds all the pieces to explain a story with which many people might not be familiar, without condescending to either the audience nor mocking the people he's interviewing. There are a few moments when he's in total disbelief that people will pay thousands of dollars for a weave that must be professionally maintained frequently. At least I'm a little more aware of how much I don't know now that I've seen Good Hair.

Botany of Desire is a documentary based on books and writings by Michael Pollan. Narrated by Frances McDormand, they examine 4 different plants that have been influenced by humans for very different reasons. Pollan wants to flip our perspective on these plants and look at them from the plant point of view and see how these plants, if they were able to have a thought process, were able to force humans to do their bidding. The four plants are apples, tulips, marijuana, and potatoes. Each section is told with a background about where the plant originated, how they developed to fulfill different desires in humans: sweetness, beauty, hallucinations, and nourishment. It's a really interesting documentary told from a unique perspective. I like Michael Pollan's writings so I was already intrigued by the topic, but the depth the documentary reaches is more detailed and easier to understand than some of his books. Also, it's told for a broader audience, without Pollan's strong politics involved. Both are great films that are entertaining, and interesting. 3 of 5 for both

The Last Station review

I actually saw this one in the theater a few weeks ago and with traveling and whatnot, forgot to post my review. And unlike Bright Star, this period piece actually stays with you, and unlike several other historically based movies lately, actually assumes we know very little about the topic and teaches us only what we need to know, without force feeding it. The Last Station is based on the true story of the final days, weeks and months of Leo Tolstoy's life. Christopher Plummer, in his Oscar-nominated performance, plays the author of Anna Karenina and War and Peace, who has become the leader of an almost cult-like following that seeks to live life outside of the government and in some sort of harmony. It had little exact explanations of what people in "the movement" wanted, just that worldly possessions were a pretty evil thing, and sharing them with all people would make you a better person. However, he was part of the aristocracy and his wife, Countess Sofya (Helen Mirren in a terrific Oscar nominated performance) was really pissed he was going to give away the rights to his novels, leaving them without income when Leo dies. They have a very volatile relationship, still full of passion and love, but with so much distance in their current beliefs that they can barely interact anymore. Paul Giamatti plays an assistant of Tolstoy's in "the movement" and enlists the help of James McAvoy to spy on them. McAvoy plays a young idealist who just wants to serve "the movement" and doesn't really help Giamatti undermine the Countess, as he hopes to do. However, finally Giamatti, with the help of one of Tolstoy's daughters, convinces Leo to flee to live out his life according to the simple tenets of "the movement". Sadly, he's old and sick, and only makes it to a railroad station when he can't make it any further. His love for Sofya comes out in his dying ramblings, and they are reunited as he's dying.

It's a really interesting movie, and told with beauty and restraint. The violent fights between Plummer and Mirren have absolutely no restraint. They play a couple that has obviously lived and loved for decades and knows what's what in their marriage and inside each other. Their chemistry is amazing, just for the power and presence they command on screen. Giamatti is a perfect weaselly character that he's played (intentionally or not) countless times. You're never sure he wants to totally ruin everything or is just trying to help. McAvoy is all earnestness and hope that this movement he's joining is a good thing and that he can be helpful to it. All the performances are really good, but I was most struck by Kerry Condon who plays McAvoy's love interest who only joined the movement to escape Moscow and be able to eat and live for free, so she doesn't actually believe in everything and makes McAvoy question all his beliefs. McAvoy's real-life wife, Anne-Marie Duff, played Tolstoy's conniving daughter. Odd trivia I thought I'd share. My only complaint about the movie, and it wasn't a small issue, wasn't the fact that all the actors spoke with a British accent (though they're supposed to be Russian) but rather than they used the FULL Russian name EVERY time they addressed anyone. I've been told this is customary in Russia, but hearing them say Lev Nikolayevich every time they spoke to or referred to Tolstoy in an English accent was really distracting. It was a good movie, and if you like period pieces, Russian history, or incredible acting, I recommend this movie. 3.5 Lambs/Stars

Happy Easter!

I was trying to think of a movie in which Easter is even mentioned, and I couldn't think of very many. I was trying to avoid many of the movies that show the sources of Easter. I'm thinking more of the chocolate bunnies and Easter eggs. The only one I could think of barely mentions Easter, but when you think about it, Easter figures prominently at least twice in Steel Magnolias. Based on a play by the same name (which I saw with Cherry Jones as Dolly Parton's character Truvy), there are 3 main acts: Getting ready for Shelby's wedding (Julia Roberts) which seems to be taking place right around Easter as Truvy has been dying eggs to send to the church get hidden. Weezer smashes them in the trunk when her dog gets scared and runs away. The second act is when Shelby has returned, and though diabetic and advised against it, has decided to have a child. The third act (spoiler, but this movie is several decades old at this point) is when Shelby dies and it's several months after the funeral we see her son playing at the Easter egg hunt with all the other main characters. I think the colors and the fact it takes place in spring always makes that last scene seem a little less sad, even though I'm usually still crying. That and Dolly Parton squealing, "I'm a chain" always makes me giggle.

Anyway, there's your Easter movie. Enjoy!

Brothers: Review

I've always liked Natalie Portman, so I knew I had to see Brothers, even though the subject wasn't really one I was interested in watching. One of my big pet peeves with movies is when a movie is marketed as one genre, but really falls into another, or usually not into one at all. The previews for Brothers made it seem like Natalie and Tobey Maguire were married, he went off to war, is presumed dead and she takes up with his brother, ne'erdowell Jake Gyllenhaal. While the basics of that summary are true, the movie is mostly two different stories that intersect toward the end: one following Maguire as he suffers being a POW and then suffers the trauma again when he returns and a second story following a widow trying to come to terms with the loss of her husband and raising her girls alone, but with the help of her good friend and former brother-in-law. About halfway through the movie I was thinking, "wow, Natalie Portman and Jake Gyllenhaal have absolutely no chemistry, this is going to make it hard to believe they fall in love like the previews suggest". However, their relationship was perfectly constructed, platonic love, fraternal, friendly, and nothing more. The previews make it look like they fell in love because the first story line needs to intersect theirs when Maguire returns home, and the filmmakers chose paranoia about his wife and brother getting it on as his form of coping/PTSD symptom. Until the two story lines are forced to interact, the movie is really good. Maguire is a crazed victim of his captors and can't cope with what they forced him to do and the constant torture (short glimpses of this or the movie wouldn't be tolerable) and we see him fall apart during his captivity from a strong marine to a broken man. In the other story we see Portman and Gyllenhaal lean on each other to cope with the loss, rebuilding their lives and helping the little girls deal with life moving on. The ending seems overly constructed and overly dramatic to allow all the characters to be really emotional, but actually loses the dramatic push the movie was building up to throughout. Good, but not great movie. I'm not sure how they should have marketed the film to make it seem more like a soldier's survival story rather than a love-triangle gone wrong, but it would have been easier to have enjoyed the movie without the incorrect preconceptions I had from the previews. 2 of 5 stars/lambs

Really short term goal...

I was inspired by Rachel over at Rachel's Reel Reviews to check out when my own blogiversary would occur and how close I would be to reaching some sort of round number. Well, it turns out Rachel and I might be kindred spirits (though not usually in movie taste) in wanting to blog as the 3 year anniversary of Insight Into Entertainment will be on April 10!!! Also, I'm at 392 posts, so I will attempt to hit 400 posts in the next week. Wish me luck!

TV you can work with

I recently submitted the first "chapter" of my PhD thesis. I've always been someone who needs the distraction of TV in the background to keep me focused on work. While doing the actual writing (about 4 weeks work) I watched Season 2 of Alias, Season 4 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Season 1 of The West Wing, and Season 7 of Friends. Of course I've seen them all before, though this was only the second watching of Alias, so it was easy to keep going. What do you watch when you just need something good in the background?

A funny video

TV has some of my favorite people. I watch Friday Night Lights because they're generally good people. I watch Weeds because they're pretty much not. This guy obviously liked TV too. Enjoy. To spike the interest, they include Firefly, X-files, Scrubs, etc....

Jane Campion: Bright Star

The latest movie from Jane Campion, the Oscar-winning screenwriter and director of The Piano, has created another similarly dour period piece with moments of terrific acting, but not a particularly interesting love story that has all the complexity of its hero's Wikipedia page. John Keats is a penniless poet who falls in love with an emerging fashionista Fanny Brawne who cannot considering marrying such a poor person, but wants to learn from him about poetry. Campion assumes everyone watching has mind-reading capabilities as she spends long scenes just letting us look at the characters looking at each other. There's a terrific scene when Keats' roommate, Mr. Brown, sends Fanny a valentine as an insulting joke, and proves that Fanny has no skills at anything but flirting and sewing. I found it hard to believe the love story that ensues. Many movies that describe an artist and his muse often rely on the fact that the woman is as in love with the art as with the man. This is not true, though Fanny seems to appreciate parts of Keats' poetry, she constantly talks about how she isn't an expert in poetry. The movie fails to give another reason for their love affair, though they do make it seem extremely tragic that it never develops as Keats dies at 25 of tuberculosis. Overall, I wasn't impressed with Bright Star. Almost Famous makes the love story and struggles of artists more believeable and interesting and Pride and Prejudice does a better job with a period piece. 2 of 5 stars/lambs

New Release: Green Zone

The new movie by Paul Greengrass and Brian Helgelund (who made one of my favorite movies A Knight's Tale) stars Matt Damon, Greg Kinnear, Brendan Gleason, and Amy Ryan. It's a puzzling movie because it takes place in our recent lifetime, 2003, and talks about events that most people will remember, but few people actually fully understood (including those involved, according to the movie). So it's hard to tell if they're telling a completely true story, a "based on a true" story, or a fictionalized version of actual events. I'm guessing it's somewhere in the middle. The exact details have been changed, but the spirit of the film seems to depict actual events. Damon is a soldier in charge of a unit looking for WMDs in the first few weeks after the invasion of Iraq. He's getting more and more frustrated and suspicious because no weapons are found, and because his higher ups don't want to address the failure in intelligence that keeps bringing them up emptyhanded. He starts partnering with Brendan Gleason, the CIA chief in Iraq, who is diametrically opposed to the Bush administration's policies being implemented by Greg Kinnear. There's intrigue about who might have falsified the WMD information, and in particular why they did. Damon interacts with a local Iraqi who wants to help the American soldiers liberate the country, but really doesn't want the cruelties to continue against the local people. We see the torture that was condoned, the disrespect for the country that was invaded, and the frustration it caused all around. I can understand why some people will call this a liberal bias of events, but if you remember it's a movie, and stars an action star and is not a documentary, it's easy to enjoy the film, though hard to forget it's pretty close to how I remember actual events going down. Kinnear is a good Bush flunky and Gleason plays the semi-paranoid CIA guy well, but Damon does the best job as a leader of men, trying to get to the truth - the epitome of an action hero. The great thing about him (something Nicholas Cage always fails to bring) is his inherent intelligence shining through. You believe that he's smart enough to have put together the disparate items he discovers. Good movie, the subject just isn't the easiest thing to watch. 3.5 of 5 stars

To compare this to the most recent exceptional war movie, The Hurt Locker, this movie can barely compare. Yes, they're both fighting in a desert and they both have seemingly honest, neutral main characters who just want to do their job well. The Hurt Locker is told without any of the politics or drama of WHY they're fighting. We only know they're fighting in a desert, it could be any war anywhere. They have to deal with the current type of war fare, but that's all that would date the movie to this time. Green Zone is all about the politics of war, and doesn't make as good a movie. However, it's possible to tell the best story without politics. To quote Green Zone "Don't be naive". All the President's Men told the story of politics and did it brilliantly (though not war), and Lions for Lambs tried to do both but from a desk in Washington, but also failed to make a top-notch film.

DVD Round Up: Precious and Whip It!

I was eager to see Precious now that it's out on DVD, as it never came to a theater near me. Given all the love, and ultimately two Oscars (Supporting Actress and Adapted Screenplay) this movie has received and knowing how dark the subject might be, I was nervous that it couldn't live up to expectations. Clarice Precious Jones (Gabourey Sidibe) is a 16-year-old near illiterate teenager in Harlem in the 1980s. She's pregnant for the second time by her father, and blamed for this by her mother (Mo'nique). She has used her ability to day dream to escape the horrors of her home life and maintains a self-contained hopeful inner life. She's kicked out of school for being pregnant, but offered a chance at an alternative school that seems to help at-risk or troubled girls get their GED. The teacher, Paula Patton, gives her hope that life could get better and when her son is born, Precious decides she's had enough of the abuse her mother doles out. It's pretty violent watching them fight, and you're never sure what will set Mary off. Mo'Nique's performance was definitely Oscar worthy, both for the quick transformations she makes when the social workers come by, and the halting confession she gives at the end trying to explain why she is the way she is. It's a pretty terrific movie, and the acting performances are exceptional, down to the smallest parts. It's not an easy movie to watch, but it is a very good film. 4.5 of 5 stars/lambs

Whip It! was another movie that never came near where I live, but finally arrived thanks to Netflix. This is Drew Barrymore's directorial debut, and Ellen Page's first big film since her Oscar nominated turn in Juno. She does attempt to rein in the smart-alecky attitude from Juno but you can see it emerging as she gains confidence by joining a roller derby team - The Hurl Scouts. She lies about her age and joins Drew and Kristin Wiig and becomes the new star of the team. Juliette Lewis is the star of the rival team, and attempts to shut down Page by outing her age. Page has been lying to her parents about what she's doing. Marcia Gay Harden and Daniel Stern play her parents who want her to excel at Beauty Pageants, but Page is eager to do something a little more risque with her life, but doesn't want to hurt her parents. Like most of the characters in this movie, there's no commitment to a single story or idea, and it makes for a muddled mix of coming of age, sports triumph, teenage rebellion, and taking charge of your future. Good, but not great. 3 of 5 stars/lambs

A non-Oscar post: Odd DVDs

I rented 2 DVDs recently that I couldn't finish. Usually, even if a movie is incredibly boring I'll at least skip ahead to the end and actually find out what happens. Then I probably won't even bother to review it, though perhaps as part of a DVD Roundup. I saw Coraline, the animated movie nominated for Best Animated Picture this year, but it was the type of animation that I just couldn't watch. I believe it's called stop motion animation, similar to The Nightmare Before Christmas or Corpse Bride, both of which I enjoyed somewhat. But, Coraline just started to be too creepy to be believable as a children's movie and odd to be for adults. The basic premise is that Coraline finds a secret door in her house that leads to a world where her parents are the opposite of her real-life parents. I'm sure things go horribly wrong and she realizes her real parents are the best, but I don't know as I only watched about 20 minutes and didn't bother skipping to the end. I remember this being released in 3D, which I think would only be creepier, but that's just me.

The other movie I wanted to like, or at least sit all the way through, was the remake of Fame. I should have known from the moment it was listed as a PG movie that it would be nothing like the gritty, musical version from the 1980s that I secretly loved. I was roped in my a good adult cast (for musicals) - Bebe Neuwirth, Megan Mullally, Kelsey Grammer, and Debbie Allen. However, they're all underused, and kids I've never heard of did very pale, washed out versions of what the movie used to be. Not even a good "High School Musical" version, just bland. I fastforwarded to the end to hear them sing the theme song, but didn't watch the last hour.

Did anyone particularly like either of these movies, such that I should give them another chance when they appear on TV? Please let me know if I've missed something great. Or cheer me on for saving hours of my life. Enjoy watching the Oscars on Sunday!

Insight's Oscar Predicitions 2010

I can't seem to find my Oscar predictions from last year, so I can't tell you how well I guess them. I did really well on the acting categories for the Golden Globes though (I went 6/6 on the movie actors), and here's hoping I can do as well with the Oscars. My predictions are marked with a * sign, and the ones I wish would win are marked with a + sign. Sometimes it's both.
Also, this year contests abound. We'll see if I win any. If you're a movie blogger, check out VoucherCodes.co.uk to enter. Or go over to the challenge at Spaghetti and Sweet Peas.

Best Actor
* Jeff Bridges in "Crazy Heart"
George Clooney in "Up in the Air"
Colin Firth in "A Single Man"
Morgan Freeman in "Invictus"
Jeremy Renner in "The Hurt Locker"

Best Supporting Actor
Matt Damon in "Invictus"
Woody Harrelson in "The Messenger"
Christopher Plummer in "The Last Station"
Stanley Tucci in "The Lovely Bones"
* + Christoph Waltz in "Inglourious Basterds"

Best Actress
* + Sandra Bullock in "The Blind Side"
Helen Mirren in "The Last Station"
Carey Mulligan in "An Education"
Gabourey Sidibe in "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"
Meryl Streep in "Julie & Julia"

Best Supporting Actress
Penélope Cruz in "Nine"
Vera Farmiga in "Up in the Air"
Maggie Gyllenhaal in "Crazy Heart"
Anna Kendrick in "Up in the Air"

* + Mo'Nique in "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"

Best Animated Feature Film
"Coraline"
"Fantastic Mr. Fox"
"The Princess and the Frog"
"The Secret of Kells"
* + "Up"

Achievement in Art Direction
* "Avatar"
"The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus"
"Nine"
"Sherlock Holmes"
+ "The Young Victoria"

Achievement in Cinematography
* "Avatar"
"Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince"
+ "The Hurt Locker"
"Inglourious Basterds"
"The White Ribbon"

Achievement in Costume Design
"Bright Star"
"Coco before Chanel"
"The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus"
"Nine"
* + "The Young Victoria"

Achievement in Directing
"Avatar" - James Cameron
* + "The Hurt Locker" - Kathryn Bigelow
"Inglourious Basterds" - Quentin Tarantino
"Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire" - Lee Daniels
"Up in the Air" - Jason Reitman

Best Documentary Feature
"Burma VJ"
"The Cove"
* + "Food, Inc."
"The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers"
"Which Way Home"

Best Documentary Short Subject
"China's Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province"
"The Last Campaign of Governor Booth Gardner"
* + "The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant"
"Music by Prudence"
"Rabbit à la Berlin" (Deckert Distribution)

Achievement in Film Editing
* "Avatar"
"District 9"
"The Hurt Locker"
+ "Inglourious Basterds"
"Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"

Best Foreign Language Film of the Year
"Ajami"(Kino International)
"El Secreto de Sus Ojos" (Sony Pictures Classics)
"The Milk of Sorrow"
"Un Prophète" (Sony Pictures Classics)
* + "The White Ribbon" (Sony Pictures Classics)

Achievement in Makeup
"Il Divo"
"Star Trek"
* + "The Young Victoria"

Best Original Score
* + "Avatar"
"Fantastic Mr. Fox"
"The Hurt Locker"
"Sherlock Holmes"
"Up"

Best Original Song
"Almost There" from "The Princess and the Frog"
"Down in New Orleans" from "The Princess and the Frog"
"Loin de Paname" from "Paris 36"
"Take It All" from "Nine"
* + "The Weary Kind (Theme from Crazy Heart)" from "Crazy Heart"

Best Picture
"Avatar"
"The Blind Side"
"District 9"
"An Education"
* + "The Hurt Locker"
"Inglourious Basterds"
"Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"

"A Serious Man"
"Up"
"Up in the Air"

Best Animated Short Film
"French Roast"
"Granny O'Grimm's Sleeping Beauty"

"The Lady and the Reaper (La Dama y la Muerte)"
+ "Logorama" (Autour de Minuit)
* "A Matter of Loaf and Death" (Aardman Animations)

Best Live Action Short Film
"The Door"
"Instead of Abracadabra"
"Kavi"
"Miracle Fish"
* + "The New Tenants"

Achievement in Sound Editing
"Avatar"
* + "The Hurt Locker"
"Inglourious Basterds"
"Star Trek"
"Up"

Achievement in Sound Mixing
"Avatar"
* + "The Hurt Locker"
"Inglourious Basterds"
"Star Trek"
"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen"

Achievement in Visual Effects
* + "Avatar"

"District 9"

"Star Trek"

Adapted Screenplay
"District 9"

"An Education"

"In the Loop"

"Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"

* + "Up in the Air"

Original Screenplay
"The Hurt Locker"

* + "Inglourious Basterds"
"The Messenger"
"A Serious Man"
"Up"

A Single Man: A nod to Colin Firth

I don't have a lot that I liked about the Tom Ford-directed film A Single Man, but I have to say I liked Colin Firth. He did a good job as the newly single 1960s gay professor of literature in LA by showing melancholy, terrible depression, impatience, longing, determination and of course he swam around naked (was it just me, or was that a nod to his famous scene in Pride and Prejudice?). I also liked Ginnifer Goodwin as his neighbor trying to be PC (before it was necessary and was just called manners) and Matthew Goode as his deceased partner who wanted to throw caution to the wind, but knew in the 60s that might not be the easiest thing to do. As for the things I didn't like: the affected color changes characterizing Firth's connection to another person, too much literal "swimming" through his depression, and Julianne Moore's ridiculous over-the-top character. The other thing that bothered me, particularly when someone else pointed it out was how often they told the gorgeous Colin Firth how awful he looked, when we were given no reason to think he didn't look wonderful. It is a terrific story that probably makes a very good book, but the things I liked just barely outweighed the things I didn't. 2.5 of 5 lambs/stars

DVD Round up: Comedies

Having close access to movie rentals is just one of those things that makes life a tiny bit eacier if you're a movie lover from a small town. I expect to have quite a few DVD reviews in the next few weeks thanks to a new Blockbuster kiosk only 2 minutes from my place. I've seen one I enjoyed more than I thought I would and one I enjoyed less than I expected.

Couples Retreat is a comedy with a stellar cast that actually uses them to great advantage, even if the story is very contrived, it still comes out ahead with very funny moments. The Invention of Lying also has a terrific cast, many all-star cameos, but uses a one-trick pony and explores it beyond all necessity.

Couples Retreat stars Vince Vaughn, Malin Ackerman, Jon Favreau, Kristin Davis, Jason Bateman, Kristen Bell, Faizon Love, and Kali Hawk as the couples who go on retreat. They're all starting from a different point in their marriage. Bateman/Bell have been trying to conceive a child but want to figure out if they should keep going by going to this couples therapy retreat. Vaughn and Ackerman are hoping for the honeymoon they never had due to early kids and jobs. Favreau and Davis are planning a divorce but keeping it secret until their daughter goes to college. And Love/Hawk have only been dating 2 weeks (she's 20 and his old and fat). The trademark rapid dialogue Vaughn brings to all his movies, but is in terrific company with Favreau and Bateman. The women more than hold their own by managing to avoid the stereotypical "wife" characters as fun rather than shrew. There's quite a bit of really funny bits, mostly with the various requirements the therapy puts them through. The small roles of the therapists played by John Michael Higgins, Ken Jeong, Charlotte Cornwall and Amy Hill. They're some of the more ridiculous therapists I've ever seen, but of course make all the couples look more closely at their relationships. The other people running the retreat are also sources of laughs, though definitely the low-brow variety. My only major problem with the movie was the odd pairings. Most of the couples are more than 10 years different in age (an exception is Favreau/Davis who were actually the most interesting couple). It just took away from the idea that these marriages had been going on very long or that this group of people would all be friends - a completely unexplained plot point. Still, funny if you enjoy the Vaughn/Favreau humor. 3 of 5 stars/lambs.

The Invention of Lying is also funny if you enjoy Ricky Gervais brand of humor. Jennifer Garner, Tina Fey and Rob Lowe do offer some assistance in diversifying the humor, but it's basically Gervais all the way. They live in a world where its not possible to lie or pretend or do anything that isn't true or real. So movies are just a person dramatically reading actual historical stories. Every statement someone says is assumed to be the absolute truth. One day Gervais develops the ability to lie and takes full advantage of it. He can get away with it because every just assumes everything everyone says is true, so when he tells a woman that they must have sex or the world will end, she believes him without question. The crux of the story comes when Gervais mother is dying and to relieve her fear, he makes up a story about the afterlife being a wonderful place. Several people overhear him (including Jason Bateman as her doctor) and Gervais makes up all this rules about a man in the sky who causes all the good and bad in the world and that everyone will get a mansion after death. The whole thing causes problems, and he still finds that he can't make Jennifer Garner fall in love with him even by lying. It's entertaining for the first 25 minutes or so, and then becomes a satire (or mockery) of religion that wasn't particularly funny. 2 of 5 stars/lambs

Heath Ledger's last film: The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus

With all the hype that was originally surrounding Heath Ledger's last film (he died before filming was complete) I was really excited to see it. Then when it wasn't given a wide release and had trouble finding a distributor, I was worried that the movie wouldn't be worthy of Ledger's talent. Most actors don't make one successful movie right after another, so it wouldn't be fair to add the weight of it being his last film to it being the movie he made right after The Dark Knight and won the Oscar, and sadly The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus isn't a movie that will go down in history as topping The Dark Knight but definitely be remembered both as Ledger's last film and because it's a wackadoodle fantasy movie that I'm sure will find a following once people get a chance to see it.

Dr. Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) owns a traveling show staffed by his daughter, Valentina (Lily Cole), Anton (Andrew Garfield) and Percy (Verne Troyer). They try to get people to enter the Imaginarium mirror which seems to be linked to a trance Dr. Parnassus goes into and provides the entrant with a world of whatever their imagination creates. That's the basic premise. Dr. Parnassus is immortal thanks to a deal with the devil (Mr. Nick - Tom Waits) but part of that deal will give away his daughter. They run into a stranger hanging from a bridge and attempt to save his life. He awakes with no memory of who he is (Heath Ledger) and joins their troupe and becomes incredibly good at drawing people in and they make money. It turns out Tony (Ledger) isn't such a great guy, and eventually gets in trouble in the Imaginarium, but it all ends well for the characters you like, but it's a trippy journey to get there.

I think the story was improved by the changes they were forced to make due to Ledger's untimely death. Whenever Tony enters the Imaginarium he is another vision of himself played by Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and in the longest sequence by Colin Farrell. However, the changes are not ignored, but incorporated into the story and make sense and add to the fantasy imagination created. It's a really great technique that makes the Imaginarium even more powerful (and less malevolent than it seems at the beginning). Overall, I enjoyed the movie, though the trippy sequences were a little more like nightmare scenarios than imagination. And I would definitely say that the movie was overlooked for the make-up visual effects awards (though perhaps it wasn't eligible for this year anyway). 3 of 5 stars/lambs

Lamb Devours the Oscars: Best Achievement in Makeup

I was privileged to be assigned to this category last year, so I've done my research and you can see the background here at last year's post. It's a fairly recent award and it looks like my rule of thumb for who gets nominated has nearly held up this year as well. Last year I said "Usually only 3 movies are nominated, often one of the best Picture nominees, a major movie, and then something random." I was only off by saying a best Picture nominee rather than a period piece, which Benjamin Button was both last year. This year the nominees are: The Young Victoria (period piece), Star Trek (a very big movie, with other nominations for visual effects and sound), and Il Divo (the random choice if ever there was one). Here are my individual comments on each movie from a perspective of makeup.

The Young Victoria tells the story of Britain's Queen Victoria from just before her ascension through the beginning of her reign and marriage. She reigned from 1837 to 1901, the longest of any female monarch in global history. This means, the make-up must be appropriate for the 19th century. In addition, it seems that the Academy has lumped hair design into the category for makeup. The two nominees for Young Victoria, Jenny Shircore and John Henry Gordon, are both listed (on IMDB) as hair stylists/designers, and Ms. Shircore is listed as the makeup designer. She also won the Oscar for Elizabeth. Lumping them together makes sense to me if you think of it as all of the things done to a character that are not costumes be one award. The makeup throughout the movie made Emily Blunt look young, fresh, and regal, and the hair styles of all the characters put them into a recognizable time period. Victoria has to battle between the influences of British politicians and German/Belgian relatives and politicians. The hair styles, while perhaps not perfectly accurate, did make it easy to visually distinguish between the two without being too strange. Given that Benjamin Button won last year, and this is a good movie overall, I expect this to win the Oscar. You can read my full review of the movie here.

Star Trek could give Victoria a run for the money if the Academy loves sci-fi as much as I do. The nominees are Barney Burman (prosthetic makeup designer), Mindy Hall (makeup), and Joel Harlow (prosthetic makeup supervisor). All are first time nominees, but have tons of movies to their credit. I would give them the award for the sole reason that I had no idea Eric Bana was even in the movie thanks to the insane amount of prosthetic make up that made him into a very Trek-appropriate bad guy. Also, their challenge of making beloved characters come to life in different actors at a younger age while still trying to make them seem like they belong in 2009 rather than 1970. There were lots of other "species" of characters throughout the movie that fit in seamlessly, which is a huge credit to the make-up department. So while I do think Victoria will take the award given the Academy's recent history of period pieces, they have a split history of giving the award to incredible prosthetic work so don't count Star Trek out.

Finally, the random selection, Il Divo. This movie was release in Italy in 2008, and made the various film festival circuits winning some awards, mostly for acting. It did win the Italian version of the Oscars in this category however. In fact, the two nominees for this movie are the most nominated of the bunch. Vittorio Sodano (prosthetic make up designer) and Aldo Signoretti (key hair stylist) were nominated together for Apocalypto, and Signoretti was nominated for Moulin Rouge as well. Since I doubt many people saw this (it had a limited release last April in addition to the film festivals), I'll summarize it. It's a story about the former Prime Minister in Italy, Guilio Andreotti, who was accused of ties to the mafia and negative ties with the Vatican, and basically follows him and his family through various accusations from his political opponents of murdering people who got in his way. The movie won the Jury Prize at Cannes, but having seen the movie I have no idea why it was nominated in this category. All the people look fairly normal, though given the titles of the nominees, I presume several are wearing prosthetic pieces. Nothing particularly interesting struck me, so I highly doubt this movie has any chance of winning.

If I had to give the odds of winning, I'd say Victoria has about a 70% chance of winning, with Star Trek at 29%, and simply by virtue of being nominated, Il Divo has 1% chance. I hope this helps you fill out your Oscar Ballot!

Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightening Thief (Review)

There are not so many fantastic movies out this time of the year. I usually rely on romantic comedies and children's fare. Sometimes you do find something that's unusual enough to make you really enjoy the experience. Now I haven't read the books, so I have no loyalty to the original material, though I'll probably check it out now.

Percy Jackson (Logan Lerman) is a high school student with serious reading disorders and attention problems. He's struggled, and his best friend Grover, helps him get by. He's always had an affinity for water, but is basically just trying to get by. However, all this goes awry when he's attacked in a museum by a monster-type creature who demands the lighting bolt back. It seems that Percy is the son of a mortal woman AND the Greek God of the Seas, Poseidon (Kevin McKidd). Poseidon's brother, Zeus (Sean Bean), wields a lightening bolt that has been stolen, and Zeus blames his half-mortal nephew. However, everyone in the god-like world would love to be able to steal the lightening bolt too, hence the museum monster known as a Fury. Percy escapes, learns the details of his conception and powers and is taken to a camp (pursued by a minotaur of course) for demi-gods and finds out his best friend Grover is actually his protector and a Satyr (half man/half goat) and his teacher (Pierce Brosnen) is actually a centaur (though how he crams his horse body into a wheelchair was only the first of an odd line of things you're forced to ignore). Percy's mother, who has known all along that her son is a demi-god, is captured by Hades, the third brother, and trapped her in the underworld. Percy, Grover, and another demi-god warrior Annabeth, decide to go get her back, and find the lightening bolt so Zeus won't start a war with his brothers (which I think means the humans would all be destroyed). Their adventures bring all kinds of Greek mythological creatures as well as creatures from the Iliad and the Odyssey to get in their way including a fairly bad-ass Uma Thurman as Medusa. Overall, it's a really fun story to watch, both for kids and adults who enjoy the Greek myths. I would definitely keep watching this series if they keep making them out of the many future books. My only complaint is that very little is unpredictable, particularly considering its a really imaginative story. But then again, it's a kids movie based on a kids book, so I shouldn't complain. 3.5 of 5 stars/lambs

Two newish releases and two DVDs: The Good, the Bad, and the Meh...

A week of vacation thankfully brings lots of movie viewing, not much of high quality though. I saw Valentine's Day and Crazy Heart in theaters, and Post Grad and The Boys are Back on DVD. I'll start with the good, and then you can skip down to the others you're actually interested in.

Crazy Heart was really terrific. Jeff Bridges is definitely going to win his long-deserved Oscar and in my opinion totally deserves it. I really liked this movie, though my movie-viewing partner wasn't convinced. Bridges plays Bad Blake, a semi-washed up, boozy, greasy, charming, talented country musician. He's playing in Santa Fe, and as a favor to the piano player he agrees to an interview by the local music reporter, Maggie Gyllenhaal. Since he puts the moves on everything, he flirts with Gyllenhaal, who seems attracted to him, but is smart enough to know what a one-night stand she'd be. She also has a young son she's concerned about leaving for long. However, Bad Blake is incredibly charming beyond his former star status and she succumbs. However, Blake has to keep touring as he's mostly broke. His former protegee, Tommy Sweet (Colin Farrell) asks him to open his show, and to write some new material for him to record. They obviously have a tumultuous relationship, but Farrell does a good job seeming sincere in his admiration for his former mentor. This is definitely a cliched movie about what happens to an alcoholic while he attempts to hit bottom, and the people who love him and watch him go down trying not to go with him (Gyllenhall does the best job I've ever seen of the woman in these type of movies - she stays strong and only gives him the single chance he deserves to change his ways and then she leaves). However, because Bridges is so charismatic and charming, I loved watching every minute he was on the screen. And finally, the music is absolutely fantastic. In general, I don't care for watching long scenes where a pretend character sings the pretend songs that made him famous that he sings forever (Walk the Line and Ray were different because I already knew the music and it was the representation of the real artist that was interesting). However, probably because these songs were written or produced or influenced by an actual amazing musician, T-Bone Burnett, the music is a joy to hear and watch performed by Jeff Bridges, Colin Farrell and unknown others. It's great music. There's a line from Bad Blake in the movie that goes something like: "All the great songs sound like you've heard them before" and that basically describes the music. They're good because they resemble the greatest songs of country music. I really liked this movie, 4.5 stars/lambs (missing the .5 for being really cliched about addiction and famous people).

However, Valentine's Day just barely lived up to the hype created around it. While there were some story lines I really enjoyed - Julia Roberts and Bradly Cooper, both on the airplane and on the ground; Anne Hathaway as an adult entertainment provider (by phone) and Topher Grace; and Ashton Kutcher and Jennifer Garner as friends and the final scene of the movie. The others were either boring, terrible acting, or both. I hated Taylor Swift every time she was on screen (she's a terrific musician, but NOT an actor), and you could see Taylor Lautner (not an oscar-contender himself) cringing in all their scenes together. The other teenage couple were just boring in their attempt to have sex on Valentine's day. And the Mcpair of Patrick Dempsey and Eric Dane were just boring, cute but boring. Jessica Biel's story line about hating Valentine's Day came across more pathetic than empowered, but her relationship with Jamie Foxx was interesting. This ensemble rom-com is MUCH better than last year's He's Just Not that Into You", but it's not as perfect as the casting would suggest. Removing some of the stories and increasing the depth of others would have made for the perfect Valentine's Day treat. 3 of 5 lambs/stars

So you've had the Good and the Meh for this post. There's not much to say about the bad, particularly Post Grad which I actually fast forwarded because NOTHING happened and it was incredibly boring. The cast is pretty impressive with Alexis Bledel, Zach Gilford (I love Friday Night Lights so I'll forgive him this attempt to hit the big screen), Michael Keaton, Jane Lynch and J.K. Simmons. Sadly, Bledel graduates from college, has trouble getting a job, is too arrogant to take anything that will make money and lives with her parents. Gilford is in love with Bledel and doesn't want to go to law school until she loves him too, but his dad, Simmons, is forcing him out. Keaton is crazy and Lynch is funny, but that's the entire movie. 1 lamb/star

The Boys are Back is slightly better, just not great. Clive Owen plays a recently widowed sports reporter father in Australia who has to figure out how to raise his 5-year old son. However, he's also got a 14-year old son from a previous marriage that he realizes he's abandoned. His attempts to be a working father are heart felt and well intentioned, but of course don't work. This movie has been done in other place and in other ways where child-rearing is left to the children and the dad's theory of no rules always back fires. The actor who plays Owen's older son Harry, George MacKay, could have been Ron Weasley if he'd been older when they started. Totally looks the part so I had trouble taking his angst seriously. However, it's not terrible, just Meh. 2.5 of 5 lambs/stars

Dear John: Nicholas Sparks latest movie

I'll admit it: The Notebook is one of my favorite movies. However, the newest movie adapted from a Nicholas Sparks novel is not quite up to par, and in this instance, I blame the film maker rather than the material. I haven't read any of Sparks' books except The Notebook, but that was years before the movie was made. However, I've seen and enjoyed 4 (yes 4) of the movies made from his books. Since they're all basically the same premise, I'll just give you the details of each in the order I enjoyed them and why.

The Notebook stars Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams as Noah and Allie, who fall in love even though he's a poor local boy and she's a posh city girl. Her mother secretly keeps them apart by holding back all the letters Noah writes when they separate. Allie falls in love with another, James Marsden, and agrees to marry him. Noah works to fulfill his dreams of renovating an old plantation house, and when his picture appears in the paper, Allie has doubts that her love has disappeared. They reunite, and all is well. The terrific chemistry between them, and the beautiful scenery in the North Carolina coastal areas make the film a joy to watch and romantic. Also, there's quite a twist at the end that's easy to see coming, but still heartwarming, and played by marvelous actors.

Next comes Dear John, starring Channing Tatem and Amanda Seyfried in the same roles as The Notebook, posh, educated city girl, and local boy in the army. They fall in love over the two weeks he's on leave, and then write letters for what should be his last year of service. However, 9/11 gets in the way, and he re-enlists, and she decides she can't wait for him forever. She sends him a "dear John" aka break-up letter (ironically, his name is John), and he is devastated. Of course they ultimately find each other again years later. The best part of this movie is the various subplots, particularly John's father played brilliantly by Oscar nominee Richard Jenkins. He's a single dad who has never been able to communicate with his son. It's only meeting Seyfried that John understands his dad has Asperger's Syndrome and they begin to work towards a better relationship. Since this is a new release, I'll give it the 2.5 of 5 stars/lambs

A Walk to Remember varies only slightly from the rough boy/posh girl relationship. This time they're in high school, and she has leukemia and doesn't really care what people think of the odd ways she dresses or talks. Shane West is a popular kid forced to hang out with her while doing the musical. West and Mandy Moore do good job convincing us they're falling in love. It's sad just like all the others, though as it doesn't end happily, it's more of a tear-jerker than just a romantic movie.

Finally, Nights in Rodanthe is a grown-up offering from Sparks. Diane Lane plays a divorced woman who agrees to housesit a Bed and Breakfast on the North Carolina coast for a friend one weekend. Only one guest is expected: Richard Gere, a single doctor coming to seek forgiveness from a local family after he failed to save their mother. Lane and Gere get stranded at the house when a hurricane approaches, and of course, they too fall in love. Gere finds forgiveness won't come from the family, but finding love is better. He goes to work with his son in Latin America, writing letters to Lane, promising to return. It also doesn't end well, and for that reason, it's my least favorite.

So, what do most Sparks movies have in common? 1. Socially unequal couples fall in love in very short periods of time. 2. Though socially diverse, they are both very literate and enjoy sending letters. 3. Bad things will occur to keep the couple apart, but sometimes it all ends well. 4. All are fun to watch.

The Young Victoria and Emma

L.P. Hartley, a British author, started one of his books with the sentence: "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there." I think this is why many people enjoy both traveling and watching movies set in a previous period. It's interesting to see both the similarities between today's life and how they lived their lives in the past. The other thing I can appreciate is that every telling of a past story comes from the mind of a person living today, so that must influence the final product they create. Unless it's meant to be a historical story, only representing facts and actual recorded conversations, I think it's okay to take liberties with historical precision to tell a good story. I think this is part of why I enjoyed Inglorious Basterds so much. Tarantino took the elements of history, but told his own story. He never represented it as a lesson in history, but perhaps a glimpse at the infinite possibilities of story telling.

The Young Victoria stars Emily Blunt in her first major role, and I have to say she carried the movie really well. She plays Britain's Queen Victoria from a young age, through her ascension, and the beginning of her reign and marriage. Victoria was the niece of William IV, and the only living descendant from his line. She was protected at a young age, she's shown in the movie being required to hold the hand of an adult whenever going up or down stairs - even when she was 17! Her mother was a German princess and closely related to the new King Leopold of Belgium, and so manipulated her daughter to favor her family over her duties to the British throne. However, her uncle's family, and his favored Prime Minister, Melbourne (played with an edge of smarmy by Paul Bettany) wanted to assure their continued power. She has been raised knowing she will be Queen, and thankfully is able to ascend when she becomes 18. There was a lot of fear the previous King would die before she reached 18, thus causing a "Regency" wherein her mother and the German/Belgian agenda was put in power. Once she attains power, as with Elizabeth I before her, she is urged to marry. Thankfully she was raised with enough self-possession to know that if she took the wrong man to marry, he might usurp her throne as much as any regent or other powerful influence - plus she'd have to sleep with him. The qualms of a young girl about marrying are as present in her performance as her fears as a monarch fearing for her throne. As was custom, she was introduced to her cousin Albert as a potential mate, also the nephew of King Leopold, which would cement England's help with Belgian rule. However, Victoria decides not to be pressured into making decisions about marriage, and they begin to write letters. Albert is completely smitten, though resents being a pawn in geopolitical machinations. Victoria also chooses to take advice from Lord Melbourne, often to the detriment of her popular image. As now, the people of England didn't care much for the monarch interfering with actual political decisions. However, back then, it had to do with the ladies in waiting of the queen, and the influence they could exert on behalf of their politically minded husbands. All of this is to explain that Victoria had a lot to navigate, all the while being only 18, 19 or 20. She does finally marry Albert, and even then has trouble finding a position for him to play. He's a Prince in his own right, but just because he marries the Queen does NOT make him king (as with the current Prince Phillip, husband to Queen Elizabeth II). They reigned together, ushering in the Victorian era which drastically improved science, public works progress, and expanded the British empire around the world. I thought it was an exceptional movie. The costumes seemed perfect, easily recognizable from the paintings and images of her that survive. The hairstyles were elaborate though not distracting, and overall made for a terrific period drama. At heart it's a love story, but it also is a feminist story celebrating the beginning of the reign of the longest serving female monarch in history. 3.5. of 5 stars.

The second period piece I enjoyed is the best version I've ever seen of Emma. While Clueless was a good adaptation, this period version starring Romola Garai (Atonement and Amazing Grace) and Johnny Lee Miller ("Eli Stone" and "Endgame") as Emma and Mr. Knightly. It's a 4 part mini-series on PBS that I'm certain will be on DVD soon. I've enjoyed the Gwyneth Paltrow version of Emma from the 1990s, but having seen the PBS version, I can safely say the older version is pretty crappy. Garai is a far more interesting character to watch, and embodies the spirit that all of Jane Austen's heroines possess, far better than Paltrow's performance of a bratty little girl fussing when she doesn't get her way. Johnny Lee Miller's foray into American TV was pretty great - I loved "Eli Stone" but he is terrific in the smaller British characters he's portrayed since. Michael Gambon also has a small part as Emma's curmudgeonly father. I highly recommend it if you're an Austen fan. All the details from the book, and much of the dialogue, are perfectly intact and brought to life with the same feeling as the book. 5 of 5 stars.