Reviews and More

I have never watched The Simpons TV series on a regular basis, but I’ve seen enough episodes over the years to get the basic premise of the show. I’ve always thought the show was pretty funny, so when I heard about The Simpsons Movie release over the summer, all I could do was wonder what took so long. I knew I would see the film at some point, and that happened over the weekend when I finally rented the DVD. It turned out to be similar to all the episodes I’ve seen: a few decent laughs, a couple of chuckles, and plenty of entertaining moments.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): The plot for this movie was very straightforward, which I guess is a good thing since I’m sure a lot of younger kids wanted to see this. As the film opens, we see that Lake Springfield has become nothing more than a dumping ground for industrial waste, chemicals, and all kinds of other pollutants. After the band Green Day dies in the lake, Lisa Simpson decides that it’s time to take some action. With the help of an Irish boy named Colin, Lisa convinces the Springfield residents to stop dumping waste in the lake.

This works for a while, but then Homer gets a pet pig. At first, Homer just put the pig’s waste in a silo in the backyard; however, it begins to smell so bad that Marge demands that he remove it at once. On his way to the town dump, Homer learns that the donut shop is giving away freebies, so he decides to toss the silo into the lake to save time (and get to the donuts that much quicker).

The pig waste brings the lake’s pollution level to the breaking point. Mutant animals start appearing, which causes the federal government to get involved. An EPA official named Cargill decides to drop a huge glass dome over Springfield to seal in the residents and their problems. When everyone learns that Homer was cause of their domed existence, they form a mob and storm the Simpson home. The clan escapes through a sinkhole in the backyard, make it to the other side of the dome, and decide to move to Alaska to start over.

The rest of the film then deals with the the various mishaps that the family gets into on the way to Alaska, as well as Homer’s attempt to get back into Marge’s good graces and save Springfield.

My Reaction: I’m not sure how the hardcore fans reacted to this film, but to me it felt more like an extended TV episode than anything else. Yes, there were a couple of things thrown in there to remind me that I wasn’t watching FOX (like that shot of Bart’s penis or Marge saying “God damn”, but otherwise, there was very little difference from what they do every weekend. I guess it didn’t help that I watched this at home on a Sunday night instead of at the theater!

I have to say that I was disappointed that some of my favorite characters didn’t make it into the movie. I can’t believe the writers didn’t give Apu anything to do! And how hard could it have been to give Mayor Quimby a speech or two? After all, the pollution directly affected the town, so wouldn’t it be natural for the mayor to have something to say about the issue?

I really don’t have any comments about the plot because it was highly outlandish, as is usually the case with The Simpsons. At least it moved along pretty quickly, and at just about 80 minutes to the credits, there wasn’t much time to get bored.

Overall, I thought The Simpsons Movie was a decent film for a bit of mindless entertainment, so I give it 6.0 stars overall.

In order to have fresh content for this blog, I have to consume a lot of media. I always have 2-3 books going at any given time, watch at least two hours of primetime TV series (on DVD right now) per day, and try to take in at least half of a movie every day so I can have materials to review. Every once in a while, get tired of taking notes while I watch TV or movies, so I kick back with an old favorite, grab a bowl of popcorn, and just enjoy the show. Recently, I had a chance to watch The Color of Money again — one of my favorite movies of the 1980s.

The Color of Money is more or less the sequel to the 1961 film The Hustler. Paul Newman reprises his role as “Fast” Eddie Felson, a remarkable pool player who made a living by hustling games at different pool halls around the country. After he became well known, it was impossible for him to hustle anymore, so he gets out of the game. But then he meets Vincent (played by Tom Cruise), a young, obnoxious hotshot who spins and twirls his pool cue after running the table on his opponents.

Eddie sees a lot of himself in Vincent, and decides that together, the two of them can make a lot of money. He then starts teaching Vincent how to hustle, how to dump games in order to set up his opponent for a big payoff.

After some initial objections, Vincent eventually embraces Eddie’s methods, and the two do indeed start cleaning up. But then Eddie and Vincent start seeing things differently and have a bit of a fallout, which sets up their meeting at a big Atlantic City pool tournament.

I won’t give away the ending, but instead recommend that you see the film for yourself. No, it’s not one of Scorsese’s best films; however, it’s a lot of fun and there is definitely some great pool action in it.

Despite the fact that it just opened on Christmas Day, there’s already been a lot of Oscar buzz about Denzel Washington’s new movie The Great Debaters. I’ve been hearing about this film for more than a month now, and when all the positive reviews started rolling in, I decided that I’d go see it in theaters. Obviously, there’s always the chance that a film generating this much hype would be a disappointment in the end, but that didn’t happen here.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): The Great Debaters presents the true story of the 1935 Wiley College (Marshall, TX) debate team coached by professor Melvin Tolson (played by Washington). The team was comprised solely of African-American students at a time when racism, lynching, and Jim Crow laws were still facts of life in the South.

Nevertheless, the Wiley College team overcame every obstacle in their way, and through sheer persistence, were able to secure invitations to debate against all-white universities — including Harvard, the reigning national champions.

Considering the title, the plot dealt surprisingly little with the actual debates. Instead, the focus was on team members Henry Lowe (Nate Parker), Samantha Booke (Jurnee Smollett), and James Farmer, Jr. (Denzel Whitaker), and their interactions with Tolson. We see Tolson helping the students work through their separate issues to make them not only better debaters, but also better, stronger individuals.

A running subplot in the film was how Tolson spent his off-campus hours trying to organize sharecroppers (both black and white) into a union. This didn’t sit well with local authorities, which led to even more problems for Tolson and the team.

In the end, however, they all make it to the Harvard debate, and, drawing on the horrors that they lived through and witnessed, manage to defeat the reigning national champs.

My Reaction: I knew nothing about Melvin Tolson or the Wiley College debaters before going into this film, but that didn’t detract from my viewing experience at all. I thought this was a very powerful movie that dealt with major issues (without getting preachy), so I can definitely see why it’s making all sorts of Top-10 lists for the best movies of 2007.

I thought Denzel Washington was fantastic as Tolson. He’s just so believable in this type of inspirational mentor role that I couldn’t really imagine anyone else being as effective in the part. In addition, I thought Denzel Whitaker was awesome as James Farmer, Jr., the precocious 14-year-old college student. I’m sure we’ll be seeing him in more movies in the future!

Ordinarily, I don’t like it when subplots overpower the main events in a film, but The Great Debaters was definitely an exception. Everything that was going on with the lynching and unionizing attempts was so relevant to the students’ lives that it would have been impossible to separate one story from the other. Plus, even with all the sidetracking, I thought the pacing of the film was quick enough to prevent me from being bored.

The only thing I didn’t like about this film was the fact that it didn’t bother to explain the debating format or anything about the way the debates would be judged. It’s as though the filmmakers assumed that the audience would already be familiar with such things or wouldn’t care about such details, but that wasn’t the case with me. As a result, I didn’t know what was going on during the climactic scenes against Harvard, and had no way to gauge if the Wiley team was doing well or not. Let’s face it: debate is not like, say, football. You can’t just assume that people will understand what’s being judged during the speeches.

Overall, I thought The Great Debaters was a very moving film. It is certainly one of the year’s ten best, and is absolutely worth seeing in the theater. I give it 8.0 stars out of 10.

With the writers’ strike still in full swing, I’ve been branching out and watching some different television shows. I recently borrowed the entire first season of Showtime’s Dexter from a friend, and have gone through a few episodes already.

I wasn’t too taken with the pilot because I actually found the premise to be a bit off-putting. But I stuck with it, and have found subsequent episodes to be a lot more engaging.

I think the best part of the show is the titular Dexter, played by Michael C. Hall (in an amazing departure from his previous Six Feet Under character). Dexter is a forensics specialist with the Miami police department who happens to moonlight as a serial killer.

He chooses his victims carefully, making sure to go after scumbags (child molesters, wife-killers, rapists) who have somehow escaped justice. And like most serial killers, Dexter takes a token from his victims. Instead of the usual personal effects like cufflinks, money clips, or earrings, Dexter likes to take blood samples, which he preserves on microscope slides and keeps in a box. Weird, huh?

My friends who like this show positively RAVE about it, so I can’t wait to get into it a bit more. Hopefully I’ll end up enjoying it just as much as everyone else!

I like to have audiobooks on my iPod to help me pass the time when I’m driving or exercising. However, I don’t buy audiobooks because they’re relatively expensive and I’d never listen to anything more than once, so I have to rely on free stuff from Librivox, my friends, or the public library. Free is great, of course, but the selection is extremely limited. I guess this is a good thing, in a way, because it forces me to branch out and try stuff that I ordinarily wouldn’t even consider. That’s precisely why I picked up The Cat Who Could Read Backwards by Lilian Jackson Braun.

I’d heard a little bit about Lilian Jackson Braun before checking this book out, but not enough to know what to expect from it. I figured, however, that since she’s published more than 25 novels in this Cat Who series, that the book was at least mildly entertaining. I was right.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): The main character in the novel is a man named Jim Qwilleran. He used to be a respected crime reporter for a major newspaper, but lost his touch (and quite a few jobs) after he started drinking heavily. He has now cleaned up his act and is looking to make a comeback, but none of the papers will give him a chance — except the Daily Fluxion. And he won’t be on the crime beat anymore; he’ll be writing fluff pieces about the numerous artists and galleries in the city.

Qwilleran’s first assignment is to interview a local artist named Cal Halapay. During the meeting with the strange young man, Qwilleran learns quite a bit about the city’s art scene. Specifically, he learns that most of the artists have a beef with the Daily Fluxion’s art critic, a man named George Bonifield Mountclemens III. Mountclemens has a habit of mercilessly lambasting artists, which is why very few people like him. Qwilleran also learns about a few other artists in the area and about how very competitive they are with each other.

The interview piques Qwilleran’s interest in Mountclemens. He has never met the critic because he works from home, sending his articles in on tape. One evening, however, Mountclemens invites Qwilleran to his house for dinner. It turns out that Qwilleran actually likes Mountclemens (and his Siamese cat Kao K’o-Kung), and ends up renting an apartment on the first floor of Mountclemens’ home.

Things get interesting when Earl Lambreth, the owner of the most successful gallery in the city, is murdered. There are several suspects, but no real leads, so the investigation goes nowhere. Of course, Qwilleran isn’t a detective, so he doesn’t even concern himself with the problem too much — beyond the usual idle speculation.

Soon thereafter, another artist dies in what might have been an accident or might have been murder. And finally, Mountclemens himself is murdered as well. Now Qwilleran becomes a bit more active in trying to figure out what’s going on, and he eventually does solve the crime — with the help of Kao K’o-Kung (Koko), the cat who could read backwards.

My Reaction: I was caught a bit off guard by this book because I was expecting it to be an all-out mystery. But it seemed to me that the crimes were actually a subplot, while the main point of the book was to introduce the reader to Qwilleran and the cat. I found Qwilleran to be likable and all, but focusing on him when he wasn’t even investigating the murders made the book progress a bit too slowly for my tastes.

I have to admit that with this being an audiobook, I got the names of the artists confused all the time. I couldn’t remember who the characters were, which other characters they were in contact with, and what kind of grudges they held against each other. Of course, this made it impossible for me to piece the clues together on my own, so I had no idea who the killer was until Braun revealed it at the end. Even then, I couldn’t remember the character’s significance in the novel, so I’m afraid most of the mystery plot was lost on me.

Nevertheless, I thought this was a decent little book in its own way. It’s certainly not what I’m used to, which is perhaps why I liked it despite its lack of action. I guess a change of pace is a good thing every once in a while.

If you’re looking for a hardcore murder mystery, The Cat Who Could Read Backwards is not for you. But if you don’t mind a character-driven piece with a bit of mystery thrown into the mix, then go ahead and give this one a try!

I am pretty much indifferent to Pixar films. I don’t go out of my way to see them, but neither do I actively try to avoid them as some people do. My five-year-old son apparently feels the same way, as he never asked to see Ratatouille until this past weekend, even though we’ve been walking by the DVD cases at Blockbuster for months now.

I’d seen previews for Ratatouille, of course, but wasn’t really intrigued by the premise of a rat who wanted to be a chef. Nevertheless, I was determined to give this movie a fair shake as I sat down to watch it with my boy. I shouldn’t have bothered.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): Rémy (voiced by Patton Oswalt) is part of a rat colony living in the ceiling of a cottage on the outskirts of Paris. While the rest of the colony is content to scavenge garbage like most rats, Rémy is different. He has more refined tastes, and prefers to eat from the kitchen — an extremely dangerous practice, as it leaves him out in the open and makes it easier for humans to spot him.

Rémy has other quirks as well. He has a highly developed sense of smell, which lands him the role of poison-sniffer for the colony. Moreover, he enjoys watching cooking shows on TV, particularly one hosted by Auguste Gusteau (Brad Garrett), the foremost chef in France. Gusteau’s motto is that anyone can cook, and Rémy takes those words to heart. His biggest dream is to become a chef, so he practices whenever he finds the kitchen empty.

Soon a couple of things happen that put Rémy on the road to chefdom. First, Gusteau dies after a scathing review from top food critic Anton Ego (Peter O’Toole), leaving his restaurant in the control of Skinner (Ian Holm), a former sous-chef. Second, Rémy gets separated from his colony and winds up right outside of Gusteau’s restaurant. This is significant because it allows him to meet Linguini (Lou Romano), a young man who has recently been hired at the restaurant as a janitor.

As Rémy watches from outside the window, he sees Linguini spill some soup and then try to fix his mistake by adding a bunch of nearby ingredients. Rémy is horrified at what the outcome might be, so he slips into the kitchen and touches up the soup. It’s a big hit in the restaurant, prompting Skinner to demand that Linguini recreate the soup or be fired. Linguini can’t do it, of course, so Rémy decides to help him. He’ll hide under Linguini’s chef hat and control his movements by tugging on Linguini’s hair, much like a puppet master.

The rest of the film then deals with the way Rémy helps Linguini attain success in the kitchen and in his personal life. Various subplots are resolved along the way, including identifying Gusteau’s rightful heir, satisfying the critic Anton Ego, and making Rémy’s cooking dreams come true.

My Reaction: Despite my initial feelings that Ratatouille didn’t look all that great, I actually found myself liking (and rooting for) Rémy during the first quarter of the film or so. But as soon as I realized that Rémy wouldn’t actually be able to talk to Linguini, everything went downhill for me.

I mean, let’s see if I can get this straight: the filmmakers gave us a rat that could talk, read, cook, and understand people, but then decided that it would be too much of a stretch to have the rat be able to speak directly to said people? What’s up with that? It made no sense at all, and rendered the scenes between Rémy and Linguini incredibly boring.

I guess one could make the argument that if Rémy and Linguini could talk, then one of the biggest obstacles of the plot would be removed. I can understand that to a point, but how hard would it have been to come up with other problems that a rat who wants to be a chef would potentially face?

And I wasn’t the only one in my household who didn’t like this film. My son was bored throughout, and didn’t even bother to finish it.

Overall, I was expecting Ratatouille, with its obscene $150 million budget, to be so much better. I was extremely disappointed with this latest project from Pixar, and give the film just 5.0 stars out of 10.

Even though I like watching movies based on true stories, I’ve been wary of A Mighty Heart ever since it was released earlier this year. I was definitely interested in getting some new insight into what happened behind the scenes of the Daniel Pearl kidnapping; but at the same time, I’d heard about all the mixed reviews this movie received, with some of the more cynical critics deriding it as a showcase for star Angelina Jolie to get an Oscar nomination. This was enough to put me off for a while, but I finally gave in and rented the DVD over the weekend. I should have just stayed away.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): The film opens with a few short scenes of Danny Pearl (played by Dan Futterman) interacting with his pregnant wife Mariane (Jolie). Both of them are journalists, and they’re in the city of Karachi, Pakistan so Danny can chase down various interviews and stories, most notably about the attempted bombing by Richard Reid. He finally got a big lead, a potential interview with a man named Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani at a restaurant in Karachi, but mysteriously disappears during the cab ride.

When Danny fails to come home or call, Mariane becomes agitated. The political unrest in Karachi was well known, so she felt that there was definite reason to worry. She calls people at the U.S. Embassy, at the Wall Street Journal (where Danny worked), and got some of her friends to make sure that the local Pakistani police agencies were involved as well.

The different players try to piece together Danny’s movements in the days leading up to his disappearance. They comb through his emails and phone records, and try to track down everyone who had contact with him. After a few days, they finally get a new email on Danny’s computer: he’s been kidnapped by extremists who are protesting the treatment of Pakistani detainees in the U.S. They believe that Danny is really a CIA agent, and demand the release of Pakistani prisoners or they’ll kill Pearl.

The rest of the film then shows how the different agencies, both Pakistani and American, race against the clock to try to track down Danny and his kidnappers before it’s too late. Of course, I’m sure that 99 percent of the people who watch this film already know the outcome, so I’m not giving anything away when I tell you that all these efforts fail and Danny is beheaded — on video.

My Reaction: It’s hard for me to write a negative response to something that’s so personal and tragic to real, living people (the Pearl family), but I thought this film didn’t focus on the right story. When the Pearl case unfolded back in 2002, it was a gripping, terrifying, and ultimately tragic story that captivated a worldwide audience. The reason for that was simple: the images of a shackled Danny Pearl with a gun held to his head were frighteningly memorable. Danny was the story then, not Mariane. And that’s where the film went wrong.

Instead of focusing on Mariane during this tragedy, I think the filmmakers should have given the audience a chance to get to know Danny. We saw him for all of, what, two minutes before he disappeared, which simply wasn’t enough time to care about him or to become emotionally invested in what happened to him.

The bulk of the film should have been about Danny, showing us what kind of reporter he was and how he was working hard to chase down the Richard Reid story. Then give us the kidnapping, a condensed version of the efforts to find him, and finally, the tragic result. That’s the story I wanted to see. And think about it: 10 years from now, is the next generation of moviegoers going to understand what the hell this film was about? No, because it doesn’t do anything to set up Danny’s character!

Why the filmmakers chose to focus on Mariane is a mystery to me — particularly since she didn’t do anything the whole time! She kept her cool, didn’t freak out until she his death was confirmed, and then was right back to being her strong self on TV interviews and so forth. Kudos to her for being such a together woman, but does that make for a compelling film? Absolutely not!

Moreover, it was impossible for me to keep all the other characters straight. I didn’t know who was who, what agency they represented, or what their connection to Danny/Mariane was. As a result, the movie was a jumble most of the time.

Overall, A Mighty Heart was not at all the kind of film I was expecting. I was extremely disappointed with the result, and give it 6.0 stars out of 10.

Back in 1987, I was just beginning to go to movies without my parents. On Friday nights, they’d drop me off at the local theater so I could meet my friends, and then they’d pick me up again after the movie ended. I clearly remember that one of the first films I wanted to see with my friends was The Monster Squad. I had a major crush on the lead actor André Gower, and couldn’t wait to see him in this.

Of course, once the movie came out on VHS tape, I asked for (and received) a copy for my birthday — and promptly wore it out from repeated viewings. It took a long time for The Monster Squad to come out on DVD, but you better believe I purchased one as soon as I was able to get my hands on it!

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): Gower stars as Sean Crenshaw, the leader of a club called The Monster Squad. The club basically consists of Sean and his friends Patrick (played by Robby Kiger) and Horace (Brent Chalem), and all they really do is hang out in their treehouse, read comics, and quiz each other on the appropriate ways to kill werewolves, vampires, and other assorted creatures. They’re also trying to recruit local tough guy Rudy (Ryan Lambert) to join the group.

One day, Sean’s mom, who knows all about his obsession with monsters, buys him an old diary from a garage sale. It was written by a man named Van Helsing, a well-known vampire hunter who lived in Germany a century ago. Sean is ecstatic to receive such a present, but unfortunately, it’s written in German. He and his friends therefore have to go ask a neighbor known as Scary German Guy (Leonardo Cimino) for help in translating the diary.

The diary tells of the existence of a special amulet that helps preserve the good in the world. Once a century, however, the forces of good and evil become perfectly balanced, and on that day, if the amulet is destroyed, the forces of evil can run rampant and take over the world. The next D-Day is just around the corner, which means The Monster Squad has to recover the amulet before Dracula and his henchmen can get to it.

The rest of the film then deals with The Monster Squad’s preparations for the big showdown with Dracula in their efforts to save the world from being overrun by evil beings.

My Reaction: I saw The Monster Squad so many times when I was younger that I remembered most of the movie when I watched it for the first time as an adult. I have to admit that this is the sort of film that will only appeal to a small group of people. It’s not a true “horror” movie, as there are no scary parts at all (well, very young kids might get scared, but that’s about it), but it’s not quite campy enough to endure as a true cult classic. To be honest, I was a bit bored during my viewing over the weekend.

Now that I’ve seen it with my adult perspective, I realize how totally outlandish the whole concept is. I mean, forget about the fact that the movie has Dracula, Frankenstein, a werewolf, and an aqua-thing in it. How about the major coincidence of the amulet showing up in a town that happens to have a Monster Squad in it? Or that Sean’s mom happened to buy Van Helsing’s diary just in time for Sean and his friends to save the day? Obviously when I was a kid these things didn’t matter; but it’s hard to overlook this stuff now.

Overall, however, I can’t rate The Monster Squad that low because I have such a nostalgic attachment to it. As a result, I’m giving this film 6.5 stars out of 10, and will qualify my rating by admitting that I’m being generous here!

There are a lot of new movie releases that I want to see in theaters right now, so it was very difficult to settle on just one when my husband and I went to the cineplex last night. However, since my husband was in the mood to see something light and entertaining, we finally selected National Treasure: Book of Secrets, the sequel to the 2004 hit National Treasure, which grossed more than $173 million at the box office. I really enjoyed the first film, and was looking forward to seeing this second one. Unfortunately, the formula that worked so well three years ago came off as being, well, formulaic this time. The result was a film that was flat and boring, with none of the excitement or wonder of the original.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): The film opens with treasure hunter Benjamin Gates (played by Nicolas Cage) giving a lecture about why his great-grandfather Thomas Gates should be considered a Civil War hero. But just as the lecture ends, a man in the crowd says that he has one of the missing pages from the diary of Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth. The page lists Thomas Gates as one of the co-conspirators, which would obviously change everything that Ben and his father Patrick (Jon Voight) have thought about their ancestor.

The accuser is Mitch Wilkinson (Ed Harris), a black market artifacts dealer who wants to bring some historical glory to his own family. Wilkinson gives the missing page to Ben so he can compare it to the original diary. It seems to be a fit, but Ben still doesn’t believe his great-grandfather was involved. He wants to run some additional tests on the fragment, so he calls up old pal Riley Poole (Justin Bartha), who is now a best-selling author. Riley needs to help Ben break into his old house since his girlfriend Abigail (Diane Kruger) kicked him out. Ben needs Abigail’s ID so he can get to a spectral imaging machine to check out the fragment.

Sure enough, there’s a cipher on the diary page. That sets the rest of the plot in motion, as Ben, Patrick, Riley, and Abigail try to clear Thomas Gates’ name. Ben firmly believes that Thomas, in accordance with family legend, burned the diary pages to prevent the Confederacy from finding the so-called Cibola, a Native American City of Gold. If the Confederacy had been able to get their hands on that kind of capital, the outcome of the Civil War would have been different.

The treasure hunt leads from Washington, D.C. to Paris and London, before finally winding its way back to D.C. again. The ultimate clue lies in the Book of Secrets, a tome that passes from U.S. President to U.S. President and contains the nation’s biggest secrets. The book is supposedly kept in the Oval Office, which of course poses quite a problem for Ben and his team.

Nevertheless, Ben manages to succeed in the face of all these obstacles (as well as near-constant pursuit from Wilkinson) and find the City of Gold — near Mt. Rushmore in South Dakota.

My Reaction: As I said, I really enjoyed the first National Treasure movie, but I was completely disappointed by this one. Everything unfolded more or less in the exact same way as in the first movie, but because I was familiar with the gimmicks, they simply weren’t fun anymore. It also seemed like everything happened much too quickly in Book of Secrets. The filmmakers didn’t bother setting anything up and waiting for a good payoff. Instead, Gates and his team get a clue, and three minutes later, they’ve already solved it and have moved on to the next one.

I liked the first one so much because the team actually had to work at solving the clues. This time, everything came far too easily — including that harebrained scheme to “kidnap” the President. In one scene Ben says the only chance he has of getting to the Book of Secrets is if he can ask the President about it point-blank, which means they would have to be alone. In the very next scene, the team is in place to converge on the President’s birthday bash. Whaaat? With no planning at all?

I was also disappointed with the Cibola reveal. It was almost the same as the Freemason treasure room from the first movie, but this one was a lot less jaw-dropping. There should have been far more gold, far more glittering, far more… treasure.

Even the comedic moments seemed a bit forced in this film. Riley, who was so funny in the first movie, was trying way too hard in this one. Almost everything he said was intended to be humorous, but only a few of his one-liners actually evoked laughs. The best part was when he got in the car expecting to drive, only to realize that there was no steering wheel in front of him because they were in England. Other than that, I can’t remember any other truly funny moments with him.

Overall, I think Book of Secrets really missed the mark. When the entire cast returns for a sequel, and you have the addition of great actors like Ed Harris and Helen Mirren, then audience expectations will understandably be high. Book of Secrets fell well short of what I thought it would be, so I’m giving it just 5.5 stars out of 10.

I’ve been meaning to see Bug ever since it came out in theaters over the summer, but because it was going up against Pirates of the Caribbean 3 and Spider-Man 3, I managed to miss it. Then I kind of forgot about it until I started seeing the DVD case at Blockbuster, and finally got around to renting it a couple weeks ago.

I was expecting this to be a horror movie because that’s how it was marketed way back during its release, and because it was directed by William Friedkin, of Exorcist fame. However, I discovered that Bug was more of a psychological thriller than anything else — a scenario that simply didn’t work for me in the end.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): Ashely Judd stars as Agnes White, a lower-class woman who lives in a motel apartment and works as a waitress in a lesbian bar. The opening scenes show us that Agnes is skittish and jumpy because of prank phone calls she’s been receiving. No one ever speaks; all she ever hears is heavy breathing. She suspects the calls are from her ex-husband Jerry (played by Harry Connick, Jr.) because he’s due to be out on parole now, but she has no proof of this.

One night after work, a fellow waitress from the bar named R.C. (Lynn Collins) drops by Agnes’ apartment with Peter (Michael Shannon), a drifter she recently met. Agnes and R.C. drink and do cocaine, while Peter just hovers in the background watching them. R.C. leaves a little while later, but Peter stays on. He and Agnes get to talking, and it’s revealed that he was in the army for a time, and is currently between living arrangements and jobs. Agnes invites Peter to stay the night, and he accepts.

The next day, Jerry shows up. He comes in uninvited, takes a shower, hits Agnes, takes all her cash, and then leaves again just as Peter comes in. Peter helps clean Agnes up, the two get to talking again, and they eventually end up sleeping together.

From that point forward, the film focuses almost entirely on the way Peter and Agnes feed off each other’s problems. Peter is soon shown to be an extremely paranoid, delusional person who thinks the army is conducting experiments on him. He’s convinced that the army has somehow infested Agnes’ apartment with bugs as a means of taking him down. He exhibits bite marks despite the fact that neither Agnes nor R.C. can actually see any bugs, and spends a lot of time looking at things under a microscope. Soon after, Agnes becomes convinced that Peter is right, and they both descend into complete madness.

My Reaction: As I said above, this was certainly not the horror movie I was expecting it to be. I nevertheless watched it with an open mind, hoping that the story would be worthwhile anyway, but I was extremely disappointed by what I saw. I usually appreciate psychological thrillers — at least when the basic premise or the main characters are interesting enough to carry the film. That just wasn’t the case with Bug, so the whole thing fell flat.

First of all, I didn’t feel any kind of connection with either Agnes or Peter. I’ve read some fan reaction stating that Agnes and Peter were supposed to be regular everyday joes, but that didn’t fly with me. A delusional drifter and a white trash drinker/drug user who sleeps with said drifter within 24 hours are certainly not the kind of people I’ve ever been around. So I didn’t have any sympathy for either of them right at the beginning, and the script didn’t give me a chance to care about them as the story progressed.

Second, the premise just wasn’t engaging enough. So these two loony loners in a dumpy motel room believe they’ve got a bug infestation on their hands? They scratch themselves until they bleed, do up the room in tinfoil and bug zappers, and then barricade themselves in against intruders? Meh. Not exactly exciting stuff there.

Speaking of those bug zappers, how did they even afford so many? The cheapest ones are like $20 each, and there were at least 10-15 in the room. Agnes never had anything but crumpled singles in her purse, while Peter probably didn’t have much either. I know this is merely a nitpick, but I was totally distracted by these questions when I saw all those zappers on the screen.

Judd and Shannon were pretty good with the material they had to work with, but I just couldn’t get into their story or care about their plight. As a result, I give Bug only 4.5 stars out of 10, and recommend that you skip it.

I never watch reality TV shows because I just don’t like the format. I have better things to do with my time than watch cutthroat competitors trying to win boatloads of cash by backstabbing other contestants or whatever. Plus, it seems that every time I open a tabloid, yet another “reality TV star” is shown to have a criminal record or some other seedy past. That kind of thing simply isn’t entertaining to me.

But so many of my friends are raving about the reality show Extreme Makeover: Home Edition that I might end up breaking my unwritten rule here in order to give it a try. Apparently, this show is different from all the rest in that it’s actually all about doing good things for people.

Specifically, one lucky family is chosen to have their house completely renovated by host Ty Pennington and local contractors. The family goes away for a week, and then come back to a beautiful new home.

It sounds like a fun concept, but I’m not sure what they’d fill the hour-long slot with. Probably shots of the contractors tearing stuff down and then using their Ingersoll Rand air tools (or whatever brand they actually use) to build the new house.

I think hearing the various families’ stories and seeing their reactions to their new homes would be cool, but watching houses being built week in and week out might get a bit boring. However, since there’s nothing else on right now except reruns, I might check out a couple episodes on ABC.com to see what the show is all about!

Film critic Roger Ebert has posted his list of the Top 10 films of 2007. I’ve only seen one of them, of course, which means I’ve got a lot of viewing to do before the Oscars come around. Here are the films Ebert selected, in order:

1. Juno
2. No Country for Old Men
3. Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead
4. Atonement
5. The Kite Runner
6. Away From Her
7. Across the Universe
8. La Vie en Rose
9. The Great Debaters
10. Into the Wild

I just saw Atonement last weekend, but have barely even heard of the others (besides No Country for Old Men and Into the Wild). Wow, where have I been??

I saw The Princess Bride with my family when it first came out 20 years ago. I remember liking it at the time, but I never got on board with the cult following, so I only saw the film from beginning to end just that once. Of course, I caught snippets on cable about 100 times in the years after that, so I still remembered pretty much the entire story when I sat down to watch my 20th Anniversary Collector’s Edition DVD the other day.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): When a young boy (played by Fred Savage) stays home from school because he is sick, his grandfather (Peter Falk) comes over to babysit and read him a book. The book is the tale of The Princess Bride, which will be the main plot in the film. At first, the grandson is reluctant to hear the story because it has kissing in it, but as soon as the swordfights start up, he gets into it.

The Princess Bride is the story of Buttercup (Robin Wright), a beautiful young woman who falls in love with a farm boy named Westley (Cary Elwes). The two want to marry, but Westley has no money, so he decides to go off to sea to make his fortune, and then return for Buttercup.

Westley is gone for five years, during which time word reaches Buttercup that he was captured by The Dread Pirate Roberts, a man so vicious that he murders every captive he takes. Buttercup can only assume that Westley fell victim to the Dread Pirate Roberts and is now dead. As such, she has no choice but to marry the evil Prince Humperdinck (Chris Sarandon) of Florin. Buttercup doesn’t love him, of course, but can’t defy the Prince’s orders.

Prior to the wedding day, Buttercup is kidnapped by a villain named Vizzini (Wallace Shawn) and his two henchmen Inigo Montoya (Mandy Patinkin) and Fezzik (Andre the Giant). Unbeknownst to Buttercup, these men are actually following Prince Humperdinck’s orders. He wants to blame Buttercup’s abduction — and murder — on Florin’s enemies so that he has an excuse to go to war with them.

But as Vizzini, Inigo, and Fezzik are sailing away with Buttercup, they noticed that they’re being followed by another ship. It turns out that it’s the Dread Pirate Robert’s ship, and a Man in Black starts trailing them on foot when they alight. The Man in Black defeats Inigo in a swordfight, Fezzik in a test of strength, and Vizzini in a battle of intellect. He then takes Buttercup for himself — and reveals that he is Westley, her farm boy.

The reunion doesn’t last long, as Prince Humperdinck and his accomplice Count Rugen (Christopher Guest) are right on their trail. The Prince’s soldiers surround Westley and Buttercup, prompting Buttercup to surrender on the condition that Westley be set free unharmed. Humperdinck agrees, but as soon as Buttercup is out of earshot, he orders Rugen to kill Westley.

The rest of the film then deals with Westley’s attempts to escape Rugen’s clutches and rescue Buttercup before she marries Prince Humperdinck. Westley joins forces with Inigo and Fezzik for this purpose, and, this being a fairy tale, the rescue is a success.

My Reaction: While I’m certainly not one of those obsessive fans who can quote every line in the movie, I found that I still enjoyed The Princess Bride quite a bit even after all these years.

My favorite scenes are from the beginning when Westley is dressed up as the Man in Black and gets past Inigo, Fezzik, and Vizzini to rescue Buttercup the first time. The swordfight with Inigo was truly magnificent, as was the setup where Inigo graciously waited for the Man in Black to catch his breath before starting.

Unfortunately, the action slowed considerably once Westley was captured and taken to the Pit of Despair. It’s pretty tough to generate excitement when your hero is not even able to stand under his own power, and I have to wonder why the screenwriter wanted to go that route. I felt there should have been another swordfight between Westley and Humperdinck at the end, but that’s obviously not what we got.

Nevertheless, The Princess Bride is an entertaining film that overcomes a few slow spots to arrive at a satisfying conclusion after a mostly fun journey. I give this movie 6.5 stars out of 10 and recommend that you see it again if it’s been a while since your last viewing!

I was looking at my favorite entertainment websites today, like People.com and Entertainment Weekly, when I suddenly realized that I am not trendy at all when it comes to fashion. I would never be able to pull off any of the outfits that the celebs wear on the red carpet!

I know that retro is very in right now, so almost every photo I saw showed celebs in vintage styles. From huge sunglasses to retro mini dresses and platform shoes, there’s just no way I’d ever be able to wear any of that stuff.

I guess I’m just boring in that I prefer classic looks over all this trendy stuff!

I generally like Adam Sandler comedies because they are simple, straightforward stories that are almost always entertaining. Sure, there have been a couple of misfires along the way (I didn’t think Chuck and Larry was very good), but for the most part, I get what I expect from Sandler.

I somehow missed The Longest Yard, a remake of the 1974 Burt Reynolds film, when it was in theaters, and then didn’t get around to renting it until just last weekend. I never saw the original, so can’t make comparisons between the two movies, but I thought this version was decent on its own.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): Sandler stars as Paul Crewe, a washed-up former NFL MVP who was banned from the league because of a points-shaving scandal. Crewe steadfastly maintained his innocence, and there wasn’t enough evidence to indict him. However, his reputation with the fans was ruined. All he does now is drink beer and let Lena (Courteney Cox), his rich bitch of a girlfriend, boss him around.

One night after getting into a fight with Lena, Crewe takes off in her Bentley, with a six-pack of beer in hand. Lena reports her car stolen, and it’s not long before Crewe gets pulled over. For some reason, instead of letting the cops take him in, he decides to lead them on a high-speed chase through the city. Crewe ends up crashing the Bentley and trashing several squad cars, which lands him in jail on a 3-year sentence.

Crewe ends up in a Texas prison where the warden ( and guards are big on football. They play in a semi-pro league, and take everything very seriously. Warden Hazen (James Cromwell) wants Crewe to help give his team a few tips, since they’ll be playing last year’s league champs in their very first game. Crewe says it would be a good idea to have a tune-up game against a weaker team to help get their confidence up. Warden Hazen agrees, so he orders a reluctant Crewe to recruit some inmates to play against the guards.

The rest of the film consists of the scenes that you’d expect from a movie like this. First, we see how terrible the inmate team is and how good the guards are. Then we see Crewe have setback after setback in terms of recruiting. After that, one good player joins up, then another, and another. Finally, the inmate team starts coming together and it looks like they’ll have a shot to win after all. And of course, we get extended coverage of the Big Game, with the underdogs triumphing in the end.

My Reaction: Despite the fact that nothing unexpected happens in The Longest Yard, I still found it to be enjoyable. I guess that’s probably because I’m a huge football fan anyway, so I liked that the game was central to the story. Moreover, even though the script wasn’t that great, Sandler was his usual likable self, which made it easy to keep watching even though I knew how the whole thing was going to turn out.

One thing I didn’t particularly care for was how much of a farce the action in the big game was. I mean, karate kicks and punches? Give me a break! I would have preferred a more straightforward take on the game, with the inmates getting their revenge via the types of clean hits you’d actually get in a football game. I guess the filmmakers were going for laughs with those moves, but really, it was just stupid.

Besides William Fichtner as Knauer, I didn’t think any of the supporting characters were that good. I was expecting a lot more from Chris Rock, so I was disappointed with his lack of funny one-liners. The guys on the team weren’t very memorable either, unless you think big, brutish dumb clods are funny.

Overall, The Longest Yard won’t go down as one of Sandler’s best films, but it’s definitely watchable. I give it 6.0 stars out of 10, and recommend that you check it out the next time you’re in the mood for a mindless sports flick.

My son started preschool earlier this year, which means I now have to write his name on everything he brings to class. I usually just do this by using a Sharpe to label his belongings, but recently I had an opportunity to sample some anodized dog tags from a company called QuickTrophy. I thought a dog tag would be a great item to attach to my son’s backpack (on the inside, of course) to help identify it as his own, so I jumped at the chance to participate — especially since I would be allowed to customize the dog tag to my personal taste.

I selected a blue one with a crossed checkered flag logo because my son loves racing. I then had it engraved with my son’s name and the number 44, which is the number of his favorite motocross racer. Here’s a picture of it, though I must apologize in advance for the image quality. Both of my regular digital cameras are broken, so this was taken with my camera phone, which can’t zoom in properly.

I was very impressed with how well the dog tag turned out! The engraving is crystal clear, the flag logo looks very cool, and the anodized blue finish is extremely crisp. Trust me, my photo doesn’t even come close to doing this product justice!

The dog tag also came with a free 24″ stainless steel ball chain, so I’m thinking my son might want to wear this instead of putting it in his backpack.

Since we’re so close to Christmas here, I’m going to put give him this dog tag as a stocking stuffer. I’m sure he’ll love it!

If you’re interested in getting a custom dog tag of your own, I recommend checking out QuickTrophy.com. They have a fantastic selection to choose from, the ordering process was simple, and the turnaround time was super-fast. You won’t be disappointed!

I’m not a fan of so-called “stoner comedies” like Dazed & Confused, Dude, Where’s My Car?, or even Fast Times at Ridgemont High, so I wasn’t in any rush to check out 2004’s entry into the genre, Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle. But over the years, this film has developed a pretty strong cult following, and since I now watch star Kal Penn in the TV series House and co-star Neil Patrick Harris in How I Met Your Mother, I figured I would give this film a try. All I can say is, it wasn’t as bad as I expected it to be!

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): Harold (played by John Cho) and Kumar (Penn) are twenty-something roommates who like to get high in their free time. One night after smoking some weed, they inevitably get the munchies. Harold reaches for the phone to order some takeout, but Kumar is tired of that. He wants something else, something that would make for a more substantial meal. Just then, a commercial for White Castle comes on TV, so the two decide to head out for some sliders.

The problem with this plan is that neither of them have been to White Castle in years, so they’re not really sure where the closest one is. Kumar remembers one being near a mall or something, but when they arrive, there’s a different burger joint there instead. The two friends debate for a minute about whether they should settle for these burgers or continue on to White Castle, and of course they decide to drive on.

The rest of the film then deals with the various misadventures that Harold and Kumar get into as their simple trip to White Castle turns into an all-night experience that they won’t soon forget.

My Reaction: I didn’t really have any expectations about what this film would be like, so I ended up not having a strong reaction to it one way or the other. There were some funny moments along the way, along with some dumb ones, and a few scenes that were downright inexplicable (like that whole thing about riding on a cheetah). At least the two main characters were likable, and, at just 88 minutes long from opening title to end credits, the film certainly didn’t overstay its welcome.

I have to say that I was disappointed with Neil Patrick Harris’ appearance here. I’d heard so many things about how funny he was, but I thought his scenes were boring. He’s 100 times funnier as Barney Stinson — though I did notice that he brought some of his mannerisms from this film to his role on HIMYM. That was interesting.

Overall, I thought Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle was a decent flick, and give it 5.0 stars out of 10. I’m not a stoner, so that’s my opinion after watching the movie while stone cold sober. Your mileage may vary depending on your, ahem, state of mind at the time of viewing!

With the writers’ strike still going on and only reruns (or reality shows) airing on TV now, I finally decided to start watching Without a Trace. I think the show is in its sixth season now, but I’d never seen a single episode before last week when I borrowed the Season One DVDs from a friend.

So far, I think the show is pretty good. It centers around a small FBI unit that specializes in missing persons cases. The main character is Jack Malone (played by Anthony LaPaglia), who I think is just fantastic in the role. I don’t really know any of the other characters yet because none of them have stood out thus far.

The investigations themselves remind me a little bit of both CSI and Cold Case. On the one hand, the agents comb through the crime scene (the last place the missing person was seen) as thoroughly as Grissom & Co. on CSI. It’s amazing what Jack and his team can determine just from looking through a missing person’s home. I mean, even something as trivial as whether or not the bathroom lights were left on can tell the FBI if foul play was involved. Amazing!

The Cold Case elements come in when the agents interview witnesses and suspects. Many times, these interviews will change to flashbacks to show exactly what happened when the interviewee and missing person last saw each other.

Without a Trace is a Jerry Bruckheimer production, which means that it’s slick and fast-paced. I’m definitely going to keep watching this one!

I haven’t been reading much very lately, so my goal of going through all of Agatha Christie’s mystery novels in chronological order is taking much longer than expected. I just finished One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, which was her 27th full-length novel. Published in 1940, this book features her most famous character, Belgian detective Hercule Poirot. I usually enjoy the Poirot novels, but I have to admit that the last few have been rather disappointing, and unfortunately, One, Two, Buckle My Shoe continues this trend.

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): The novel opens with Hercule Poirot going to an appointment at his dentist’s office. Things progress normally enough: there are a few other people in the waiting room, his appointment with Dr. Morley goes off without a hitch, and he leaves without incident. The only slightly unusual happening occurs as Poirot is leaving. He notices that a woman named Mabelle Sainsbury-Seale lost a buckle from one of her shoes. Poirot returns the shiny buckle to her, and that’s that.

Later that day, Poirot learns from Inspector Japp that Morley died from an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound. A London dentist’s suicide would normally not be a matter for Scotland Yard, but since one of the other patients that day was an important international banker named Alistair Blunt, Japp must perform a thorough investigation.

Poirot of course joins in, and when they can’t find anything in Morley’s history to suggest that there would be a legitimate cause for suicide, Poirot decides to continue digging. He figures out that it’s entirely possible that Morley was, in fact, murdered, so he begins working from that perspective. Poirot uncovers a few suspects, but the story gets more and more complicated as different motives and possibilities are introduced.

By the end, Poirot does indeed solve the case, though the solution is quite a stretch — and one that I don’t think even the most careful of readers could guess.

My Reaction: I’ve said this a few times before, but I think it bears repeating: I really miss having Poirot’s former sidekick Arthur Hastings around. Hastings more or less acted as a stand-in for the reader, asking the questions that we wanted to ask, muddling through the mystery on his own, and trying to learn from Poirot in the process. Without Hastings there, all of Poirot’s machinations take place inside his head, and it’s just not nearly as fun to read these books when we can’t see precisely how Poirot makes his leaps of logic.

Hastings’ input and questions were certainly needed in One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, as I got completely lost about halfway through the book. As a result, I had no idea why Dr. Morley was murdered, nor did I understand the whole identity switch thing — which obviously had a negative impact on my enjoyment of the book.

Overall, I wouldn’t rank this book as one of Christie’s best, so there’s really no reason to read it unless you’re trying to get through her entire bibliography.

I have been anxiously awaiting the U.S. release of Atonement for months now. The film finally came to the Chicago area last week, but it was only available at two theaters in the city — neither of which I could get to. This week, I discovered that Atonement spread to a few more theaters, including one about 30 minutes away from my house. I immediately cleared my schedule for the morning, and headed out to attend the matinée showing. This film was well worth the wait and hassle that I had to go through to see it!

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): Atonement opens in 1935 at the vast Tallis estate in England. It’s there that we meet the major players in the film: 13-year-old Briony Tallis (played by Saoirse Ronan), a precocious girl who spends her free time writing plays for her cousins to perform in; Cecelia Tallis (Keira Knightley), Briony’s older sister; and Robbie Turner (James McAvoy), a young man whose father was gardener of the estate and who was put through school by Mr. Tallis.

One day, Briony witnesses a scene between Cecelia and Robbie out by the fountain. Briony is watching from an upstairs window of the house, so she doesn’t actually know the context of the scene; she just gives it her own interpretation. She sees Robbie break a vase that Cecelia was carrying, causing a piece to fly off into the fountain. Cecelia takes off her dress to go into the fountain and retrieve the piece, with Robbie watching all the while.

Briony initially doesn’t think much of this incident, but then later on something happens to change her mind. Robbie asks her to deliver a note of apology to Cecelia, and then as soon as she’s out of Robbie’s sight, she rips the note open to read it for herself. Robbie had sent along the wrong note: the one in the envelope contained a vulgar word and lewd sentiments that Robbie never meant for anyone to see. Horrified despite not understanding what she read, Briony delivers the note to Cecelia, then goes to talk to her cousin Lola (Juno Temple) about it. The girls decide that Robbie is a sex maniac.

Briony then looks for Cecelia, only to find her having sex with Robbie in the library. Once again, Briony is shocked by what she sees, and is more convinced than ever that Robbie only has one thing on his mind. These preconceptions color Briony’s thinking when she later comes upon Lola being sexually assaulted by a man in a dark field. Briony is convinced that she saw Robbie, but that’s only because of all the preceding incidents.

Briony formally (and falsely) accuses Robbie, and produces the lewd note he wrote to Cecelia as further evidence against him. He ends up serving three years in prison before being given the option to join the army. Meanwhile, Cecelia moves out to become a nurse as World War II begins in earnest, and she essentially cuts off all ties with her family. Briony, feeling guilty about what she did, decides to become a nurse as well instead of going to Cambridge as she ought to have done.

The rest of the film then deals with the way these three lives were irrevocably changed by Briony’s childhood lie, culminating in a surprising ending.

My reaction: I read the Ian McEwan novel of the same name a few years ago, and while I remembered the basic outline of the story (including the ending), I had long since forgotten the details. But as I watched this film, everything came flooding back to me, and I was started remembering events as they unfolded on the screen. I have to say that when I read the book, a lot of the plot points were confusing to me, especially with all the POV changes at the beginning. The movie makes everything much clearer, so for that I’m grateful.

I thought the film was well done on the whole, but for some reason, I didn’t find myself caring about the characters as much as I did in the book. For instance, I felt far more sympathetic towards book Robbie than movie Robbie, and the close sisterly relationship between Briony and Cecelia simply didn’t come through very well in the film. As a result, the ending, while still powerful, lost some of its punch for me.

Nevertheless, Atonement as a whole was still an incredible film. I’m sure it will win some Oscars and other awards, at least for cinematography if nothing else, and it is certainly deserving. I give it 8.0 stars out of 10 and recommend that you see it in a theater if you can!