The Back-up Plan (2010)

Starring Jennifer Lopez and Alex O’Loughlin. Also Melissa McCarthy.

First things first: I saw a preview for Beastly on this movie and now I am officially intrigued. I remember seeing it in the Fandango list for what was coming out this summer, but all I noticed was Vanessa Hudgens and some really strange looking guy. Well what a bad first impression for such an interesting movie! Let’s start afresh with this trailer (watch it for yourself on the Beastly website).

First, this gloriously gorgeous guy shows up on screen (Alex Pettyfer). He’s brimming with charisma and you can just tell he’s going to be a winning character. Then he meets Vanessa Hudgens and she’s not interested and you can tell he’s intrigued by this. Enter one of the Olsen twins (Mary-Kate according to IMDB) as a totally creepy witch (although can I be honest for one second? She looked almost normal even though it was clear she was supposed to be slightly grotesque. Is it weird that those two are so creepy that dark eye make-up and evil eyes look normal?). She transfigures the gorgeous guy’s skin into a mottled travesty of what it was before, and vows that if he hasn’t found love in a year, he’ll remain that way forever. A true Beauty and the Beast story for modern times! Woot! And I mean for modern times—he sees after he disappears from school that everyone is commenting on social networking that they are glad he’s gone, and he feels the sting of realizing everyone hated him all along. Then flash to him saving Vanessa Hudgens’s life and you can tell they are going to fall in love. At one point he asks Evil Olsen for more time and she denies him, but this being a tale of Beauty and the Beast, it has to work out well in the end. I’m super excited to see it! Coming out July 30, 2010. Yay!

Let’s just say I was more impressed by that trailer than I was by The Back-Up Plan. I know, how sad, right! I had such high hopes. I enjoyed Jennifer Lopez, honestly, I did. And Alex O’Loughlin is appropriately handsome. He just felt too cookie cutter, too romantic-comedy-love-interest. It doesn’t take much to impress me, let’s be honest, and I’m a sucker for romantic lines, but this was overly cheesy. They get into the same cab, and argue, and then it’s clear that he’s smitten. Just like that? Really? She sees him in the Farmer’s Market and he claims that she must be following him. I was like, okay, it’s one thing to make that joke, but to act like you genuinely believe that she followed you there? That seems unlikely. Then he just randomly shows up at a show she’s hosting at her store, and he demands to take her to dinner and then walk her home. Sure it would be flattering to have a guy pursue you that persistently, but why would he? She was very clear from the beginning that she wasn’t at all interested (in fact, they met on her way out of her artificial insemination appointment—she was definitely planning her life without a man, so she didn’t see any room for him in her future). I just felt that was a little too much. Every girl would love to be pursued that intently by the man of her dreams, but what guy would really go to all that trouble? You can tell the script is written by a woman.

I’ve never seen Alex O’Loughlin in a movie before, so I don’t know how his acting is. I actually felt bad for the guy. I suspect he would have been absolutely charming with a better script, but he came off as insincere and inexplicably obsessed with JLo. They have sex on like their 3rd date, during which he says he doesn’t want kids, and then she admits she’s pregnant. Then he still wants to be with her. Even after they discover there’s more than one on the way. I just don’t understand where the commitment is coming from, you know?

It was the same problem I had with Nicholas Sparks’s Dear John. By all means, show me a love that will last through the ages no matter what happens—I like to think that I have that very kind of love with my husband, so I fall right into the stories and emerge giggling like a little girl. But you have to show me that there’s a reason it’s there. In Dear John, they knew each other for 2 weeks and suddenly they were promising to stay together through his like 2 years of being in the Middle East after 9/11. Um, yeah right. I’m sorry, but there’s no way. I’ve been in a long distance military relationship—if you don’t have a strong foundation, there’s no reason to put up with that shit, you know? NO WAY. Not gonna happen.

So flash forward to The Back-Up Plan, and we’ve got that same kind of mindless devotion. Stan (Alex O’Loughlin) sees Zoe (JLo) in a cab, decides he apparently wants to spend the rest of his life with her in that one moment, and then follows her around like a lovesick puppy the rest of the movie. I mean, he’s more manly than that, but he spouts an awful lot of romantic lines for someone that barely knows this woman. Plus after just one or two weeks of knowing each other—and 3 dates—she tells him she’s pregnant with some stranger’s child and he just takes it. Sure he freaks out a little at first, but within 12 hours he’s cool with it and ready to make their relationship work. She’s the one who’s always pulling away. He’s constantly saying all these ridiculous lines about how he’s not going to leave and she’s the most wonderful thing ever and blah blah blah, and she’s all like, “I don’t need you and I know you’re going to leave anyway so just do it now.” She does that to him like 4 times and he just spouts some nonsense back every time.

Like I said, I’m all for sticking-through-it-all love. Having a baby can be enormously stressful (not that I would know personally, but I could certainly imagine), and it’s not for the faint of heart. Especially the types that have only been in a relationship for a couple of weeks and don’t even want kids to begin with. That’s when you move on and find someone else. Sure she’s pretty and seems to be very funny and genuine, but when she’s carrying some other stranger’s baby, you have no obligation to have a 4th date. Seriously.

I chalk this failure to empathize with the romantic love interest to the fact that the script was written by a woman. Let’s be fair, I love scripts written by women because they generally know just what I want to see in a movie. And Nora Ephron is one example of a woman who has a whole slew of amazing romances on her resume (You’ve Got Mail, Sleepless in Seattle, When Harry Met Sally). And cheesy, unrealistic romances are not just limited to women—I just mentioned Nicholas Sparks as a prime example. I’ve never seen any of his other movies and more importantly, I’ve never read any of his books (movie adaptations are rarely as good as the books, so I can’t judge him as an author). However, Dear John was just terrible. I mean, the acting was good, and it was pretty, and you sort of felt for the characters, but I didn’t believe it. Same as I didn’t believe The Back-Up Plan.

I mentioned that I enjoyed JLo in this movie. She was adorable yet professional and she fit the part very well. Plus she’s gorgeous. That helps. :) I also know she can relate to being pregnant since she has her own kids, so I felt that her portrayal was very genuine. Plus, a girly girl can easily pull of girly lines written in a girly script. It was just Alex O’Loughlin who tanked. And as I said, I don’t think it was his acting—he played his part well, I just think the part was very poorly written. Too many stupid lines (and that from me, the princess of Neverland-sized expectations). That was sad.

Melissa McCarthy was pleasantly amusing as the leader of the Single, Mothers, and PROUD! group. I loved her as Sookie in Gilmore Girls, so of course I enjoyed her. Still, her part felt like it was a gimmick for laughs. The whole group seemed like a gimmick for laughs. Like the mother breastfeeding her 3yo. I’ve read that it’s good to breastfeed until 7 years old, which I think is a little on the crazy side, but 3yo is well inside that suggestion. Not that I would ever do that. I would be totally creeped out to see someone with a child that large on their breast, which was what they were counting on in the movie, but I know the medical benefits so I can’t diss it. Perhaps a less baby-oriented audience would get the appropriate horror reaction. It just felt awkward to me.

One of the things I did enjoy from this movie was watching the baby stuff. Not that there’s actually a lot of it. They go shopping a few times, so you get to see a little bit of it. I’ll admit that I get an email from BabySteals.com every morning just so I can look at baby stuff every day, even though I have a set plan not to get pregnant before at least February 2012 (less than 22 months! lol). Thanks Navy on that one. So of course seeing strollers and little baby clothes makes me happy, but they didn’t go into that much. They didn’t even show a single crib that I remember (possibly after the babies were born, but the cribs were still on the fringes of the camera).

What I remember more was how GD (which is how I like to shorten goddamn when I feel bad for saying it) fit Jennifer Lopez was. Especially just recovering from a real twin pregnancy herself, she looks AMAZING. I mean, I guess it’s been a couple of years ago, but still, she looks great. It’s quite inspiring for a weight loss program to spend 2 hours watching such a lovely woman parading across the screen. Alex O’Loughlin was easy on the eyes, but he was no Hugh Dancy (his role as Luke Brandon in Confessions of a Shopaholic makes me melt) or Patrick Dempsey (Robert in Enchanted is another one of those I-can’t-stop-grinning-like-an-idiot-because-he’s-so-adorable kind of guys). As I said, I think it had more to do with his failure as an attractive character that ruined his attraction as a guy. He looks good shirtless, but I’m still not impressed. And can I just say that referencing Enchanted in this review just proves how much I like adorable and cheesy romance movies? But it’s got to be believable, and that’s where this movie fails.

I’m sure this movie will do tolerably well simply because it’s the only decent romantic comedy out right now. Date Night is out, but that appears to be more comedy than romance to me (I’ve not seen it, so I can’t really judge). Other than that there’s no real romantic comedy out. I don’t know how the critics reviewed it, but I say it will still do fine at the box office. Would I highly recommend going to see it? Probably not. Is it better than going to see Clash of the Titans on your date? Yes, certainly (although that movie has its own merit if you’re looking for a historical-ish Greek action movie lol). For amusing me for 2 hours without blowing me away, I give it 2 ponies.

Rating (out of 5 rainbows and ponies): 2 ponies
Conclusion: HAPPY ENDING

-PrincessM

Anticipation

I feel like we're kind of in a dry spell of good movies right now. I should have 2 movies available at any one time that I'd like to go see. Not ones that I have some superficial interest in, or which would be a decent enough excuse to eat popcorn for dinner, but that I really, genuinely want to see. I tend to like to watch movies at the late afternoon showing, starting between 4 and 6, because I can never seem to get motivated to go out for the 7pm set, and I don't like to run into the crowds that can be at those showings, especially on the weekends. As such, when I work until 5 almost every day and lose the opportunity to go to my preferred showing, it takes a genuinely interesting movie to pull me out of my house for the dreaded primetime showing. Or as in the case of How to Train Your Dragon, I got off work at 4 and tore out of there like the place was on fire and just barely made the 4:20 showing at the only 3D theater in the area, a 15-20 minute drive from where I work. It was worth it to scramble out of work to make that showing so I wouldn't have to go back at 7:20. And as we've already established, that movie was well worth the effort.

Almost every day I wake up thinking it might be fun to go to a movie that night. Of course, 3/4 of the time, my work hours get in the way of going to the showing I'd like. It seems like for the past 2 months or so, I've opened the movie showtimes every couple of days, remembered that there aren't any movies worth seeing out, and then I close right back out. How depressing is that? If I go to the one good movie that comes out in the week but find myself bored on a Wednesday night, I should be able to find another movie to amuse myself. It's one thing if I choose not to go, but not even being able to make that choice! Alas, this is the reality I face.

Which is why instead of reviewing some interesting movie I've watched recently, I will instead look to this summer's excellent blockbuster lineup. Here are some of the upcoming movies that have caught my attention:

The Back-up Plan, April 23: Starring Jennifer Lopez, Alex O'Loughlin, and Melissa McCarthy (Sookie from Gilmore Girls!!). This is my movie for this weekend! I just started seeing commercials for it a few weeks ago, but it's got me hooked. Romance, pregnancy, babies, and an attractive leading couple? I'm there! It looks pleasantly amusing, plus I want a baby so I can totally relate.


The Losers, April 23: Starring Zoe Saldana (Avatar, Star Trek, and countless Disney appearances), Chris Evans (Fantastic Four, Push), among others that I no longer remember. This seems to have potential, but it's one of those that may be just bordering on too violent to get me into the theater. If I had my husband home to encourage me to go, I'd be all there. As it is, if I run out of other movies to watch, I may see it. I'll let you know. :)

Iron Man 2, May 7: Starring Robert Downey Jr, Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle. The first Iron Man was amazing, so this promises to be just as good. That said, I'll admit that I only saw the first one once. I remember being so blown away by its amazing goodness in theaters that it's really an abomination that I haven't watched it since. My husband is obsessed with it so he's really upset to be missing the 2nd one. At any rate, even though I'll be tempted to stay home the same way I did when he was gone for the Terminator Salvation release, as much as I enjoyed the first Iron Man, this is a must see. It should be amazing!

Babies, May 7: Starring 4 babies from around the world. I don't even know if this will come to a theater near me, but if it does, it looks really adorable. I remember almost crying when I saw the preview for the first time last year. How can any baby-lusting woman ignore such a promising film?

Robin Hood, May 14: Starring Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett. This movie gives me exactly the same feeling as Iron Man 2: it's going to be one of the most awesome blockbusters of the summer, but its action-themed premise makes me a little nervous. Of course I'll want to go see it because it's Robin Hood, and it's Russell Crowe in another Gladiator-style role, and it's medieval heroism at it's best... it's exactly the kind of thing I like to watch, minus the being nervous for people's safety. lol It'll be a struggle to find a time when I feel like going to such a potentially tense action movie, but I have no doubt that I will come away blown away and loving it.

Letter to Juliet, May 14: Starring Amanda Seyfried, Vanessa Redgrave, and Chris Egan. Oh dear, I didn't realize this came out the same weekend as Robin Hood. This could be interesting! I've been highly interested in this movie ever since I first saw the preview. I didn't much enjoy Amanda Seyfried in Dear John (which I believe is where I saw the preview, incidentally), but that may have been more the character than her. This looks totally adorable. Amanda Seyfried falling in love with a charmingly handsome British guy (let's be honest, he's gorgeous) and all helping two old people find their one true love again. And in Italy! What's not to love? This will be priority #1 that weekend.

MacGruber, May 21: Starring Will Forte, Ryan Phillippe, and Kristen Wiig. Sadly, this has potential. I've seen a couple of MacGruber skits on SNL and they were hilarious. I've never actually seen Macgyver, so I only partially got the skits, but you would not believe how often the song "MacGruber!" gets stuck in my head... It's a bit bizarre, really. Especially if I'm in the mood for an amusing farce, I may end up in the theater for this one.

Shrek Forever After, May 21: Starring Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, and Cameron Diaz. This is the biggest threat to MacGruber, because I've loved all the Shrek movies. In fact, I loved Shrek the Third so much that I actually saw it 3 times in theaters--once in Spain. That was the most enjoyable movie I saw in Spain, because having already seen it twice, I actually knew what they were supposed to be saying and could laugh appropriately. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix came out while it was there and I very badly missed having previously heard all the lines in English to make the translation effortless (I mean, I got it, but who wants to hear Harry Potter in Spanish? Seriously). The one thing that concerns me is that this appears to be dragging the storyline a little bit past its prime. I mean, one, two and three were amusing, but they lost some of their originality and charm with each one. This has the potential to strip all of our favorite characters of what made them our favorite characters (Donkey's utter devotion to Shrek, Puss's sexy Spanish flare, Fiona's fiery temper matched with her gentle loving side). I'm certain to go see it, but I reserve judgment on whether or not it will stand up to the precedent set by the previous movies.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, May 28: Starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Ben Kingsley, and Gemma Arterton. This looks utterly amazing!! When I first saw the preview, I was stunned to see Jake Gyllenhaal in such a role. I recognize him from movies like The Day After Tomorrow, Jarhead, Brokeback Mountain, and Brothers (I've never actually seen those last two, so really The Day After Tomorrow and Jarhead--but those are the other roles that I really remember him for). They're all firmly grounded in reality. Seeing him in a fantasy/historical/awesome action hero role is thrilling! He has this kind of adorable handsomeness, but he looks all man in this movie. I'm really excited to see him in something so new, plus the plotline promises to be right up my alley. In addition, I'm excited to see Gemma Arterton in another movie. I first saw her in the Pride and Prejudice parody/tribute Lost in Austen as Elizabeth Bennet, but a very forward-thinking Elizabeth Bennet. I remember being struck first by her beauty and then by her modernness (I saw the end of Lost in Austen on television and was so shocked to see Elizabeth Bennet with short cropped hair and checking her laptop that I checked it out to see the whole thing). I was also quite enchanted by her lovely accent. My next impression of her was in Clash of the Titans, where she played the beautiful maiden Io (but don't get me started on the historical inaccurateness of her role in the film). This appears to be fairly similar to Io in that she is a lovely maiden aiding the manly hero on his quest. All in all, it promises to be quite entertaining.

Killers, June 4: Starring Ashton Kutcher, Katherine Heigl, and Tom Selleck. I haven't seen much on this one, but what I have intrigues me. I loved Ashton Kutcher in Valentine's Day even though I didn't really like the movie as a whole, so that speaks well for him. And also, I seem to think of him as some podunk actor for some reason, but I always enjoy him in movies. Perhaps because of Dude, Where's My Car? and then Punked! ? I'm not sure why I think that, since I've never even seen Punked!. He just seemed to catch some flack for that, or perhaps it was just harmless humor that I didn't understand. At any rate, I loved him in The Guardian and also in Valentine's Day, so I may go see it just for him. Plus Katherine Heigl is lovely and very funny. My biggest reservation about this one is that it appears to be the exact same plotline as Mr and Mrs Smith. At least that's what I got from the one trailer I saw. Fandango.com has a different description, so perhaps it won't be so bad after all: "An ex-assassin (Ashton Kutcher) and his wife try to learn who is trying to kill them." Sure, why not! Let's go see it. Especially if it's the only promising movie of the weekend.
 
Coco Chanel & Igor Stravinsky, June 11: Starring a bunch of foreign people. I have never actually heard of this one but just the title intrigues me. Fandango.com has this to say about it: "The composer begins an affair with the fashion icon after he and his family move into her home." I'm interested because they're both such interesting people. Well, Chanel could have pretty fashion to look at, and perhaps we'll be graced with some of Stravinsky's amazing music, like The Firebird Suite or Rites of Spring. If it has a wide release, it has potential.
 
The A-Team, June 11: Starring Liam Neeson, Bradley Cooper, Quinton Jackson, and Jessica Biel. I thought this also had Sylvester Stallone, but that must be a different movie. At any rate, I think this is the one I've seen previews of and it looks intriguing. Intriguing enough to overcome its inherently action-packed, suspenseful, and likely violent tendencies? We'll have to see as it gets closer.
 
The Karate Kid, June 11: Starring Jaden Smith and Jackie Chan. I don't really remember the original Karate Kid, but I remember liking it when I was little. Also, the previews I've seen make Jaden Smith look totally adorable. If I go see it, it'll probably be for him. Or because everyone else is going to see it because it's a remake of a classic. We'll see. I'm not totally sold on this one yet.
 
Toy Story 3, June 18: Starring Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Joan Cusack, etc. Am I the only one who never really liked Toy Story that much? Apparently. It seems like this is one of the big anticipated movies of the summer, which I find strange. I don't even remember the second one except that there was a cute redhead and a grumpy old cowboy man. No princesses, no love from me. lol I don't know. I may not even go see this one. But as I've said before, if this is the only interesting movie out that I want to see, I'll go. Or maybe if someone else convinces me. Another one that may or may not make it on my list to see.
 
Knight and Day, June 25: Starring Tom Cruise, Cameron Diaz, and Peter Sarsgaard. This is another one I'm not sure about. The previews look really amusing, but I have some strange aversion to Tom Cruise. I think it's because I was born too late. I didn't even know what Top Gun was until I was like 15. I don't think I saw it until I was out of high school. (As an aside, I knew who Val Kilmer was from his role as the Mad Mardigan in Willow--when I watched Top Gun and he appeared, I was like "It's Mad Mardigan!!" and everyone looked at me like I was crazy. lol) The point is, I missed Tom Cruise's heyday. When I finally started paying attention to movies and celebrities, he started jumping on couches and preaching Scientology. He was literally just "one of those really famous movie stars and now he's suddenly gone crazy" to me. So I see that he's in a movie and I can't take him seriously. It sucks, because he's really very handsome and a talented actor. This movie looks to be straight out of the classic Cruise book--he's cool and self-assured and does a lot of his charming smiles. I can't tell if I feel like he's more confident of his own good looks and charm than he ought to be or if he's really just acting as winning and wonderful as he is. I'll have to see how I feel when this one comes out, because it looks like it could be really amusing. Cameron Diaz is adorable and this role seems to fit her goofy charm well. Let's just say it's has potential.
 
The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, June 30. Starring Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, and Taylor Lautner. Um, YEAH. I'm a big fan of the books, and it's very easy to be (or perhaps pretend to be) obsessed with these movies. Although to be honest, my love has waned over time. I saw the film with some trepidation because I thought it was going to be a scary vampire movie. Imagine my surprise when I was blown away by the intense chemistry between Kristen and Robert when I saw Twilight for the first time. I happened to be visiting my hometown at the time, so I bought the novel for the flight home and had it read by the next day. I actually went to Barnes and Noble to buy the other 3 because I just couldn't wait to read them. I had the whole series read in 6 days (thank you Thanksgiving week! lol). I was so in love with Edward that my heart leapt just thinking about him. I can't even describe how I was affected by them, and I still can't tell you why. Perhaps because my husband had been out to sea for almost 4 months and I was lonely.. Who knows. At any rate, I went back to see the movie again and I was devastated--Robert played Edward in such a depressed, brooding way, not at all the way I saw Edward in the books. I gave it some time and went to see it again, and though I still felt it was too dark, giving myself some distance from the books helped me appreciate it the 3rd time. Although my friends would consider me a HUGE Twilight fan, I'd say that has sort of faded a bit since the first reading. I tried to reread the series when my husband went underway the following spring, but I just couldn't make it through the second book. Then I tried again last fall and nearly made it to the end--I got a little ways into Breaking Dawn before my mind was captured by something else. So despite the fact that I have several pictures of me posing with cardboard cutouts of Edward and Jacob and even have 2 posters of them hanging in my guest bedroom, I've never even been able to make it through the entire series a second time. That's saying something, I think. It will never have the lasting power that Harry Potter has. I've reread Harry Potter so many times I've lost count (I'm even halfway through my second time of listening to all 7 audiobooks--consecutively). Harry Potter is my friend, and always will be, but Edward has never had the same attraction for me that he had that first time. I still think he and Bella show uncanny parallels to my own relationship with my husband, but I've never felt fluttery just thinking about him like I did the first time. THAT SAID, why is this relevant? lol Sorry. Point is, of course I'm excited about this movie. I still read http://www.lionandlamblove.org/ almost every day to keep up with the latest Twilight news, and I can't even tell you why because I don't care about 90% of it (in my defense, it always comes in pairs with my near daily checking of http://www.mugglenet.com/ hehe). I know more about it than most people I know, but it's more of a habit now than a true obsession. So...I can't wait for it to come out, and yet I almost don't care. Robert is ruining my Edward, and so while I like to see it in film, the movies will never live up to the books. At least the Harry Potter movies are something separate for me, and I can enjoy both in their own way. For Twilight, it's all so mixed up that I can't really decide how I feel. So I'll be at that midnight showing (especially if there's another library showing!), probably wearing a home-made Twilight t-shirt, but I'll probably come home more disappointed than anything. I know I was at first really impressed with New Moon, but after some time, I realized the soundtrack in particular had destroyed what I loved so much about Twilight. So we'll see. I'm giving Eclipse a chance but if it goes down the dramatic-magic-fairyland path, it may kill my affection for Twilight for good. If it can return to Twilight's edgy, sexy feel, then I'm all in. We'll have to wait and see!
 
The Last Airbender, July 2: Starring Noah Ringer, Nicola Peltz, Jackson Rathbone (Jasper in Twilight), and Dev Patel (Skins, Slumdog Millionaire). I'll admit I have no idea what this is about. I discovered only after seeing the previews that we actually do fairly decent circulation of the anime book series by the same name. What caught my interest was the intriguing preview (world-changing, good vs evil magic and heroism? sign me up!) and the cast of surprisingly familiar actors. I don't know the main little kid, but Jackson Rathbone is in it, and this is the first movie I'll have seen him in outside of Twilight. I was even more surprised by seeing Dev Patel (I was forewarned about Jackson Rathbone by my Twilight fansite, of course lol). I first saw Dev Patel in an episode of Skins that I happened to watch one night on BBC, and it just happened to focus on him and it was really amusing. Then I went to see Slumdog Millionaire and I was like, "Hey, that's that guy from Skins!" Of course now he's the guy from Slumdog Millionaire. I really liked him in that movie because he was so softspoken and sweet, and I've seen his comic chops from Skins. I'm curious to see him in this role because it's so different from what we've seen from him before. Similar to Jake Gyllenhaal in Prince of Persia, it's a sort of widening of the boundaries. Should be interesting. Oh, and did I mention M Night Shyamalan's directing? Yep. Definitely worth seeing.
 
Despicable Me, July 9: Starring Steve Carell, Jason Segel, Russell Brand. This is another one that I have no idea what it's about. I just remember the teaser having funny little cartoon guys and funny music--and after seeing the cast list, it ought to be a pretty funny movie. I feel like this must be based on something that lots of people are familiar with, something like Pink Panther, but I'm just out of the loop. So if it's anything as amusing as Pink Panther, I'll enjoy it. Fandango.com says this: "The world's second-greatest villain (Steve Carell) meets his match in three little orphans." Why not! lol

The Sorcerer's Apprentice, July 16: Starring Nicolas Cage, Jay Baruchel, and Alfred Molina. This trailer looks pretty intriguing. Mostly, I figure anything with that kind of name has got to be good. Plus it's from Disney, if I remember rightly, so I'm curious to see how they incorporate the Fantasia version of this (surely there will be at least some subtle hints to it, at the very least in the soundtrack). I think it's a weird role for Nicolas Cage, but I think a lot of roles are weird for Nicolas Cage, so we'll see. Also, thanks to recognizing Jay Baruchel's name from How to Train Your Dragon, I just realized it's the same guy who voiced Hiccup and was in She's Out of My League. He was quite amusing, and he's very endearing, so this has potential.
 
Well I was going to be done, since I've pretty much exhausted the movies that I've heard of for this summer, but then I discovered this while checking to see if there were any others:
 
Step Up 3D, August 6. Seriously?? I was utterly in love with Step Up 2 for some reason, so this has potential. Unless of course the actors have all changed (how cute was Robert Hoffman as the love interest??). Sigh. I just checked, and they have. It appears that the only one who's carrying over is Adam Sevani, who played Moose. Admittedly he was a beloved character, but is he enough to provide the sticking power for this sequel? We'll have to see. If they can pull out the amazing moves they had in the last one, I'll be there. 3D could either ruin it or make it amazing. I suspect the 3D part was largely to keep up with their clever naming scheme (Step Up 2 The Streets, Step Up 3D--they sequel number is hidden within the title itself). I had no idea this was coming out. I'm curious to see a trailer.
 
The Expendables, August 13: Starring Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Mickey Rourke, Jet Li, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Steve Austin, and Brittany Murphy. This is the one I was thinking of with Sylvester Stallone. It's got a curious cast in it, so it might be worth seeing just for that.
 
Scott Pilgrim vs The World, August 13: Starring Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, and Chris Evans. This is another one where I suspect there is a backstory that I'm not familiar with, but it still looks amusing. I love Michael Cera because he's so easy to love. He's so gentle and silly that you just can't help rooting for him. Maybe I'll learn more about what it's based on as it gets closer.
 
Eat, Pray, Love, August 13: Starring Julia Roberts, James Franco, Javier Bardem. "A married woman who seemingly has it all and is trying to get pregnant, realizes that she's not living the life she wants." HOLY CRAP. That's what that book's about?! I had no idea! Apparently I'm very bad at reading book covers, because I swear I've read that one to see what all the fuss was about. Well no wonder everybody loves it. Sounds really interesting. Plus what a cast! Julia, James, and Javier. I first learned of Javier Bardem in the Spanish film Mar Adentro (Sea Inside) about Death with Dignity, and it was such an affecting movie that I've always had great respect for him. I was unaware until recently that he also has several popular films in the American market--and not just Vicky Cristina Barcelona, which doesn't count because he's the Spaniard in the film (it fits, you know). At any rate, he's a really amazing Spanish actor and that alone makes it worth seeing his movies. Spanish major, you know... can't resist. :)
 
Other movies that are too far away to have much more than a simple plot summary:
The Switch, August 20: Starring Jennifer Aniston and Jason Bateman. Interesting combination, plus this is the plot: "A 40-year-old unmarried woman decides to become pregnant by inseminating herself with a turkey baster." This reminds me of The Back-up Plan on crack. lol We'll see if they actually manage to come up with sufficiently distinct plots. The turkey baster part alone makes it look interesting... lol
 
Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang, August 20: Starring Emma Thompson, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Rhys Ifans. Apparently there's going to be a Nanny McPhee 2. I don't even remember if I liked the first one, but it seems like this may be the reason Emma Thompson wasn't going to do any more Harry Potter movies. Although I'm pretty sure I just read she's wrapping her final filming soon... ?? I don't know, but this could be interesting.
 
Going the Distance, August 27: Starring Drew Barrymore and Justin Long. I know they worked together in She's just not that into you, so they must have enjoyed working together. Plus the plot just seems like something I could relate to: "A journalism student and her boyfriend try to navigate the pitfalls of a bi-coastal romance."
 
Okay that's plenty far enough in advance. Hopefully now you're aware of what's coming up this summer and what you can expect to hear about. Let me know if there are any other movies coming out that might be worth seeing!
 
-PrincessM

How to Train Your Dragon in 3D (2010)

Starring the voice talents of Jay Baruchel, Gerard Butler, and Craig Ferguson

Let me just start by saying that this is a great movie!! I figured after that last depressing post, I ought to post something a bit more positive, more in the spirit of this blog. So I bring you the ultimate Happy Ending movie!

First things first: I love fantasy. All-out fantasies are great, as are the ones that insert fantasy into real life (ala Harry Potter, Percy Jackson and the Olympians, Twilight, etc). This movie is a mix between the two. Everyone is familiar with the stories about the Vikings, those tough, violence-loving men (and women) who beat the crap out of everything in their path. This story takes that idea to the extreme--now instead of battling other people, they're battling dragons.

What a great mix, first of all. Vikings are mysteriously intriguing because they have so much myth surrounding the truth of their history. I mean, who knows if they really wore helmets with horns sticking out of them and wore their hair in braids, but if you see a person wearing such a get-up, you immediately understand who they're impersonating. And Vikings are cool because they come out of the time when people really thought there were such things as dragons. So while this movie doesn't necessarily try to portray Vikings in a way that could be deemed historically accurate (though I'm sure a lot of painstaking work went into making it as historically accurate as they could while still making a movie about dragons), they represent a people that we know really existed. And they have dragons.

It's a great premise. You go in knowing these are a tough bunch of people, and then you see them fighting dragons with their bare hands. Pretty badass. Excuse the language--I suppose a kid-friendly movie should include a kid-friendly review. But that's what it is.  These Vikings are kicking tail and taking names--of marauding dragons, that is. And in the midst of this dragon attack, poor little Hiccup (that's the main character's name) is trying with all his might to prove himself. His father, the clan chief and ultimate dragon butt-kicker, is obviously ashamed of Hiccup because he always seems to screw up whenever he attempts to be a dragon killer. He barely escapes several near-accidents during this particular raid, but he does succeed in capturing the most dangerous and elusive dragon known to his village: the Night Fury.

He discovers the wounded creature in the woods near his village, and he realizes he finally has the opportunity to prove that he is a good, strong Viking by killing a dragon. He makes the mistake of looking into the dragon's eyes as he goes in for the kill, however, and what he finds there is shocks him: the dragon is terrified of him. This realization saps the last of his determination and he quickly cuts the bonds of the dragon. The dragon growls at him and intimidates him, but it does not eat him or kill him or even touch him.

And so the unique friendship begins. Intrigued by the dragon, Hiccup returns day after day to visit it. Eventually he builds enough trust to touch it--though there are several failed but humorous attempts before he finally succeeds. He also discovers that the reason the dragon doesn't fly away is that it is missing part of its tail, so being the apprentice of a blacksmith, he sets to work to help it fly.

That was really what made this such a heartwarming movie. It is more than the story of two unlikely friends; it is the story of an unlikely partnership that needs both parties for either to survive. They can only fly together--Hiccup must work his flying contraption to control the dragon's "rudder", but Toothless (so named because the dragon's teeth are retractable) is the one with the wings. This period of exploration and experimentation where the two of them are learning to fly together is one of the best reasons to see the movie in 3D.

I had heard that it was better than Avatar (perhaps a slight overexaggeration), so I made sure to see it in 3D. The 3D is valuable for a different reason than in Avatar. In Avatar, seeing the movie in 3D enhances the feeling that you are truly in Pandora, surrounded by that glorious world. Because the design for that movie is grounded in reality, you feel like you are running with them through a forest that really exists.

In How to Train Your Dragon, the styling of the graphics is not intended to be real. The cartoonish features of the characters are what give it its charm. The real value of the 3D in this movie is the feeling of flying. You know that feeling when you are so moved by the joy in a scene that you actual feel your heart leap? I had that feeling while watching Hiccup and Toothless racing through rock formations and diving through clouds. I felt like I was flying with them, and the satisfaction of seeing their partnership solidify into something so beautiful, so amazing, and so fun was alive in me in that moment. It was the ultimate feel-good moment.

The rest of the movie was equally warm and fuzzy. Throughout the course of the movie, Hiccup teaches his village about how not to fight the dragons. Using what he learns from his adventures with Toothless, he is able to disarm dragons by tickling their soft spot or threatening them with yucky food instead of crushing their skulls with an axe. It is so obvious to us as an audience that this is the better approach that it is hard to believe that anyone could disagree. Leave that to the Vikings. Needless to say, the village is not impressed when they discover how Hiccup has really been defeating the dragons, and he and Toothless find themselves in a whole heap of trouble.

I don't want to say too much to give away the ending (Lord knows I can't keep my mouth shut), so let's just say ending offers just as many warm fuzzies as the beginning. Hiccup goes from the shunned outcast to the hero of the village. There was a subtle moment at the end that showed a new parallel between Hiccup and Toothless that almost brought tears to my eyes. So sweet. Such a perfect ending to a story about the power of friendship and partnership.

Now for an aside about the voices. Hiccup was an adorable sad loser type of voice, but it made him all the more lovable. I just discovered that Hiccup is voiced by the same actor that recently starred in She's Out of My League--where he also plays a lovable loser that eventually saves the day. Making these parallels adds so much depth to one's understanding of the connections between the characters! The other really fun part was hearing all the Scottish accents. Gerard Butler and Craig Ferguson lent their voices to two great characters, and that made this movie even more fun that it would have been with regular American accents. Plus I just love Craig Ferguson--he cracks me up! I can't tell if he voiced half the characers or if they all just had the same accent, but it's definitely an accent I love. All the charming and hilarious Scottish accents just add to the joy this movie gives.

This is a movie about trust and friendship, and the power of what can be achieved when we work together. This is such an ideal and innocent notion that you can't help being swept up in the joy of it all. Add in brightly colored dragons and fun and exciting flying sequences and this is a real joy to watch. The smile it left me with lasted all the way home. This gets my best rating: 5 rainbows! Go see it now!

Rating (out of 5 rainbows and ponies): 5 rainbows
Conclusion: Warm and fuzzy HAPPY ENDING!

Wuthering Heights (1992)

Based on Emily Bronte's novel of the same name from 1847
Starring Juliette Binoche and Ralph Fiennes

I debated what to review in my first post. Should I write about the movie I saw most recently or choose something that would make a better first impression? In the end I decided to choose the last movie I watched, Wuthering Heights. Not only is this the freshest film in my mind, but it also sets the tone for the rest of my blog. If you know anything about the storyling of Wuthering Heights, you can already guess how I feel about it. If not, here's a hint: I take my happy endings very seriously.

First, some back story: Sometime in high school I decided that I would read every classic ever written because, simply by being classics, they must have some inherent merit. Over time, I learned that the merit of so-called "classic" novels is more in their value as tools to teach society something about itself or about human nature than it is about about the joy they provide in reading them. I have several classics that I have found highly enjoyable, including Les Miserables, Pride and Prejudice, The Canterbury Tales, and The Scarlet Letter, among others. However, the list of classics that I have read that I have not enjoyed is much, much longer.

In fact, I refused to read Pride and Prejudice until my senior year of high school because I was convinced that it was a depressing, unpleasant read. I think I must have had it confused with Crime and Punishment, which while I've never read it, still appears to be a depressing, unpleasant read (that's why I've never read it). It was only after I saw a preview for the Bollywood movie Bride and Prejudice that I realized that Pride and Prejudice is exactly the type of book I would like to read. I immediately bought a copy and discovered one of my new favorite books of all time. So many happy endings! Perhaps I will go into that another time. For now suffice it to say that it remains one of the few classics that I believe truly enjoyable to read, beyond its amusing satire of society and human pride.

As I entered college, I started to realize that simply reading the classics just to read the classics might not be as fun as I had first thought. So many of the books were unhappy, with unhappy characters who met unhappy ends. If you moved past their value as an educational tool, many of these novels were downright unpleasant to read. I decided there was no use to reading books that weren't enjoyable to read. If they were interesting, sure. If they were boring and/or unhappy, there was no point in suffering through them just to say I had. This logic applies to Wuthering Heights.

It had always been on my list of "Classics I'll read someday" simply because I recognized the name, but it was among those that I knew nothing about. So when I saw it come across the desk at the library a few months ago, I leaped at the chance to scan the back and see if I wanted to read it. Imagine my shock when I discovered that it was one of the most depressing books in human history. I had always assumed it was along the lines of Pride and Prejudice, with an everlasting love that can't be beaten<--that was the part I'd heard of. After reading the back of the book, I rather decided that the "everlasting love" was beaten in every way possible and the book wasn't worth reading. Check that one off the list.

But of course I still feel bad about just writing off books that other people think are brilliant. So when it came through again, I felt obliged to check it out. Not in the check-it-out-from-the-library-to-read-it sense, but in the check-it-out-by-watching-the-movie-and-see-if-I-might-want-to-read-it-after-all sense. This brings me, finally to my review of the movie itself.

The actual review
If you are not familiar with the story of Wuthering Heights, let me explain the basic plotline. (I would put SPOILERS!! here except that the book has been around for 150 years, so it's sort of a moot point) Heathcliff is found and adopted by a moderately wealthy family who has a daughter named Cathy. Heathcliff, a shy and brooding young boy, falls in love with the bright and lively Cathy. Somehow, she falls in love with him as well. They form this deep, everlasting love that cannot be broken at all costs. Apparently. Trouble is, her father dies and her brother loathes Heathcliff, so he is relegated to being a servant in the household and is seen as being beneath Cathy and her family. One night, while Cathy and Heathcliff are spying through the windows of the enormously rich neighbors, the dogs chase them and they get caught trespassing. The rich family takes Cathy in and fawns over her wound while tossing Heathcliff out into the night without another glance. Cathy takes 3 months to "heal" under their care and comes back a changed woman. She is flighty and obsessed with nice things, and while Heathcliff has been tormented by her absence, she seems untouched. So much so that she agrees to marry the rich young man who cared for her, simply because she would be the richest lady in the neighborhood. Heathcliff is so distraught at this news that he disappears into the night and does not return for 2 years.

Enter the main character in the story: revenge. Heathcliff comes back with loads of mysteriously gained wealth and begins to enact his plot of revenge on everyone he's ever known. Cathy's brother, who used to kick Heathcliff around, ends up selling his estate to Heathcliff because the death of his wife in childbirth drove him mad and he drained away his wealth. So Heathcliff has his revenge on the brother. It just so happens that Wuthering Heights (the name of the estate and also the book) is the neighboring mansion to where Cathy lives, so it's easy for him to torment her and her rich husband as well. He creates so much tension between himself and her husband that she gets extremely ill after the birth of her daughter and dies ("of a broken heart," apparently).

Heathcliff takes the rich husband's sister and forces her to marry him. He is enormously abusive but she bears him a child as well. So let's recap: Cathy marries the rich husband, Heathcliff leaves only to return a rich, angry man. 3 children are born and Cathy dies of a broken heart, leaving the rich husband with a daughter, Heathcliff with a son, and also the son of Cathy's brother (he died soon after Cathy). This paints a great picture, right? You can just feel the joy and happiness already...

So fast forward 20 years and the 3 kids are all grown up. Catherine is a lovely younger version of her mother. Heathcliff took revenge on the brother's kid by making him into his servant the way his father had done to Heathcliff all those years ago. Heathcliff's own son grows up pampered and only returns after his mother dies (perhaps this is better explained in the book?). Catherine accidentally meets Heathcliff and his son after 20 years of her father forbidding her to talk to them. They charm her, and she is tricked into returning to their house later when the son writes her a letter promising love. Heathcliff locks her in the house, beats her around a little bit, and bullies her into marrying his dying son. Just so happens her father is also dying. (don't you love how these gothic novels are so well planned?) She does it so she can see her father, and badda bing, badda boom, Cathy is widowed and her inheritance went from being hers upon the death of her father to being willed to Heathcliff by her husband shortly thereafter. So she's stuck living at Wuthering Heights with Heathcliff and he's all grumpy and abusive.

Thankfully, her cousin (Cathy's brother's son, if you'll remember) is also there as a servant, and they form this sort of bond. She teaches him to read and he gives her some pleasant company. Eventually the tenant who's renting out Catherine's old home--the rich family's house, now owned by Heathcliff--comes by, awakens the ghost of Cathy that Heathcliff summoned all those years ago, and voila, that's it. Heathcliff goes back into her room for the first time in 20 years (apparently), he frolicks with her ghost in his dream, and then he dies. Catherine and her cousin are left to be happy together, and Bronte aptly concludes that a whole generation was lost forever. The grandparents were happy, the parents led atrociously unhappy lives, and finally the kids are back to being happy(ish) again.

So, whew! Lord knows I don't know how to write short summaries... I will reiterate that I have never read the novel, so there may be slight deviations here and there, but this is the plotline as laid out in the movie. Now to review this particular version.

In the very first scene of the movie, I knew we were going into a perfect gothic story. A sweeping plain, over which hang dark, ominous clouds. So gothic. Then a young woman starts walking across the plain and walks up to a decrepit mansion. I'm thinking, okay, so who is this and why is the mansion crumbling? Is this like Jane Eyre (incidentally written by Emily Bronte's sister, Charlotte Bronte), where somebody sets fire to the mansion and destroys it figuratively as well as literally? This woman is apparently Emily Bronte herself, who has stumbled upon the ruins of a once-great mansion and is making up a story to explain how it got to that state.

I think. I suspect that this is a device created to capture the voice of Bronte as it appeared in the novel. It reminds me of other gothic novels, where the author cautions about the story that is forthcoming. It felt a little unnecessary in the movie as it distracts from the actual plotline. I really liked her last line, as I mentioned, so I suppose it was a useful ploy to include her in the movie, but I think they could have done without it.

The second story-within-the-story is the appearance of a strange man at the estate, who is verbally abused by an older Heathcliff and then sees the ghost of Cathy. I suspect this too is pulled from the novel. However, when you start with Bronte wandering around in a decrepit house and then show another random man wandering around in the same house before it was ruined, you start to wonder who you're supposed to be focusing on. Why are these people important?? I felt that this gentleman's story was similar to Bronte's, where it served to create a nice circle around the story, but it was more of a distraction to me than anything else (for example, when I heard that he was a tenant at "La Grange," I naturally assumed he was a tenant farmer on Heathcliff's land and that "La Grange" was referring to a plot of land and sad little house on the Wuthering Heights estate. Come to find out about 3/4 of the way through that La Grange is actually the rich family's house. Those kinds of little details can be easy to miss in a film where unfamiliar names are unconsciously ignored, so I spent most of the movie being really confused about who lived where and why they were talking about La Grange when they had been referring to the rich family's mansion only moments earlier.) As I said, a distraction.

Then we get to the actual story. Finally! Juliette Binoche was radiant as Cathy. She was bubbly and adorable and seemed to fit the part well. I know Ralph Fiennes first from his role as Voldemort in the Harry Potter movies and also from his starring role in The Duchess and Keira Knightley's abusive husband. Incidentally, I found a lot of similarities between this movie and The Duchess. Coincidence? Who knows. This was another one of his spine-tinglingly creepy roles. As Voldemort, he was just plain evil. As the Duke of Devonshire in The Duchess, he was aloof and alarmingly chauvinist. As Heathcliff, he was like a mental patient. He was disturbingly brooding, and at times the thinly veiled anger that constantly bubbled under the surface would break through in a violent outburst. This became more frequent as Cathy came back from her time at La Grange, clearly infatuated with Edgar and all his fine things. When Heathcliff came back from his unexplained absence, he was extra creepy. No longer simply brooding, but appearing to revel in his madness. His eyes would light up with revenge when he was taunting Cathy's wealthy husband, and he showed no mercy or regret as he used several different people as human punching bags.

The more I see of Ralph Fiennes, the more I wonder if I would like him as a person. I mean, the jobs an actor takes really say nothing about their true character. Some people are just born to play villains. Ralph Fiennes plays them very well. But now I've seen him as a gleeful torturer and murder in Harry Potter, a ruthless rapist and oppressor in The Duchess, and now a madman bent on revenge in Wuthering Heights. Just starts to make you wonder, after a while...

The thing that bothers me most about this story is how it's all done in the name of love. Cathy and Heathcliff claim their love can top anything, but all it takes is for someone to dangle a few pretty dresses in front of Cathy for her to run off with the rich boy. Heathcliff sticks by his claim of eternal love by coming back to torture everyone and their brother for stealing Cathy away from him. Cathy even claims that she's dying because Heathcliff broke her heart. On her deathbed, they're arguing about who's to blame for why she's dying. Heathcliff blames her because--and I quite agree--she left him for someone else. But she's all defensive that he won't leave Edgar alone so it's all his fault she's dying. Selfish to the end, I say.

Even so, I don't think Heathcliff's anger over losing his true love gives him the right to torment 2 generations of people. That's quite selfish of him. It's like dude, she's dead, get over it. Stop torturing your kids!

If there's one thing I can't stand, it's evil deeds done in the name of love. Heathcliff torments 2 whole families just because his true love chose money over love. A few months ago, I grabbed up another "classic" that was described as being about true love, only to discover the Doctor Zhivago is actually a story about infidelity. I was so crushed by this betrayal (how dare they say it was the greatest love story of all time!) that I didn't even finish it. I still don't know how it ends. This was another example of love being the excuse given for rotten behavior. "True love" doesn't give you any right to leave your wife. Same as it doesn't give you any right to torment everyone in your path just because your "true love" didn't want you. WHATEVER, Heathcliff. Just whatever.

I think it's quite clear at this point how I felt about this film. It was almost completely devoid of happy endings, even temporary ones. From the very start, people were getting hurt and treated poorly. It's not until 5 people have died that things finally calm down and happiness is possible again. NOT COOL. Perhaps someday I will read this book to revel in its pure gothic sentiments, but until then, it gets stuck on my list of unhappy endings. Out of a possible rating of 5 rainbows and ponies, it gets one donkey for being well made. It would have been much higher if they just could have squeezed a genuinely happy ending out of it. But then, it wouldn't be the gothic novel that made it what it is.

Rating (out of 5 rainbows and ponies): One donkey
Conclusion: UNHAPPY ENDING

A preview of things to come

Hello and welcome to PrincessM's blog!

This blog was initially designed to be primarily focused on reviews of movies, but knowing my tendency to get distracted, it will most likely hold a variety of opinions on whatever has caught my interest at the moment--movies, books, soundtracks, television, or just life in general. I hope you will enjoy my perspective on things, but I warn you, you may feel like the optimism fairy just puked warm fuzzies all over you by the time you finish reading!

I prefer to look at things through a lens of hope, happiness, and imagination, and that will be reflected not only in the topics I choose but also the way I review them. If that's not your style, I suggest you look elsewhere for your entertainment. If you too love happy endings, then

Welcome and Happy Reading!