Shrek Forever After

Starring Mike Myers, Cameron Diaz, Eddie Murphy, Antonio Banderas, and Walt Dohrn. Directed by Mike Mitchell.

This was a great movie. I wasn't sure how it was going to be when I saw the preview, but I found it very amusing.

I've always enjoyed the Shrek movies but I tend to forget about them after they leave the theater. We don't own any of the Shrek movies even though I saw the last one 3 times in theaters--I remember it very clearly, because I saw it once when it came out in May, again because I enjoyed it so much, and then one more time when I was in Spain that summer because I wanted an enjoyable movie experience without the headache of trying to understand what was going on. My Shrek-in-Spanish experience was one of the highlights of the trip because it gave me so much genuine happiness for those few hours.

So I was shocked when I realized that the last time I saw a Shrek movie was 3 years ago, in 2007. I hadn't ever really considered that they would make another one, partly because it's been so long and so much has happened to me since then (I got married, moved to a new state, endured 2 and a half deployments, got a puppy, ETC). I found that when I tried to remember what happened in the last 2 movies, I couldn't even remember the plotlines. So I watched the Shrek 2 and 3 trailers (I would highly recommend it if you can't remember them clearly, although a thorough memory of the last 2 sequels isn't strictly necessary to enjoy this one). This movie actually harks back more to the original movie than the 2 sequels, which was a surprise, but in a good way.

A refresher: in the first movie, Shrek has to save Fiona from her imprisonment in a dragon-guarded tower so Prince Farqaad will leave Shrek's swamp in peace. In the process they fall in love and true love's kiss turns them both into ogres. Donkey falls in the love with the dragon and they have little dragon/donkey babies. In the second one, they have to go to Far Far Away to meet Fiona's parents and break the news that they're both ogres instead of people pretty people. Prince Charming tries to steal her away, but in the end everyone lives happily. In the last one, everyone's gotten used to the idea that Shrek is an ogre and the King, who also happens to be a frog, dies, leaving the kingdom in Shrek's hands. In order to escape this responsibility, he sets off to find a new king, the young an hilariously accurate teenage prince, Arthur. Charming tries to stir up the evil characters of Far Far Away, and even works to turn Arty against Shrek. We also find out that Fiona is pregnant and Shrek deals with the terror that comes along with that. Again, it ends with a happy ending, with Arty becoming king and Shrek and Fiona returning home to the swamp to raise their newborn triplets.

In this latest sequel, Shrek finds himself fatigued by family life. At his triplets' first birthday party, he finds the tedium of parenthood, husbandhood, and gentle friendly ogrehood to be too much. He says some hurtful things to Fiona and wishes he'd never rescued her in the first place. Enter Rumplestiltskin, that master of devious magical contracts. Fealing betrayed that Shrek had stolen his opportunity to rule Far Far Away when he rescued Fiona and thus prevented her parents from selling the kingdom to him to secure their daughter's future (whew, deep breath), Rumple jumps on Shrek's despair and offers him the opportunity to be an Ogre for a Day. Shrek wants to be feared, to be able to take mudbaths when he likes and do whatever he wants. He believes that Rumple's offer is the perfect way to recharge.

Not a stickler for the details, Shrek agrees to any day Rumple wants to take from his life. Rumple takes the day he was born, and so Shrek enters a world in which he never actually existed. Rumple is king (since Shrek didn't save Fiona, her parents signed over the kingdom to Rumple and promptly disappeared). Fiona is an ogre warlord fighting against an oppressive regime. Shrek discovers that he has entered a world where his family not only does not but cannot exist, and he realizes he left behind everything he could ever want without the ability to return to that life.

Adventures ensue, including re-meeting Donkey, a plump Puss in Boots, a gladiator Gingerbread Man, and a battle-hardened Fiona. Of course there's a happy ending, which I won't spoil, but what surprised me the most was my emotion in getting there.

I can relate to this plot because I spend at least 30% of every day thinking about babies. I read baby books, I look at baby bedding, clothing, diapers, bags, strollers, etcetera online, I watch pregnancy and baby shows on TV, I consider how I would like to decorate my nursery, I think about where we're going to move so I can think about what kind of climate I'll have to walk with the stroller in....etc. I recognize that it could be a good 2 or 3 years before we even get pregnant, but I just can't help it. I'm struggling with the desire to start several baby crafting projects, including several designs for baby blankets that I don't need yet. I don't even know what sex my baby will be and I'm already trying to make blankets for it... lol I also spend a lot of time thinking about what it will be like when they get older, when they're terrorizing my house and I can't get a moment of peace. I know it will be crazy and I will probably long for this life of solitude, quiet and endless sleep. But I can't wait. I. Can't. Wait.

So it's very appropriate for me to watch a movie about someone who has everything I want but feels overwhelmed by it. I get that. I have a feeling I will feel like that a lot when I have kids. And yet I want to have kids more than anything else in the world. So this movie captured exactly what I'm feeling right now. He has this perfect life, with a wonderful, loving wife and 3 bouncing babies, but life seems to lose its interest after days upon days of the same routine. I can understand how he would wish to return to his old, quiet life. And so he does, only to discover that he would do anything to go back.

I'll be honest, I had to work really hard to keep from crying in this movie. When he realizes that he may never see his family again--that's heart-wrenching. I can't even imagine. In a moment of rash behavior, he gave up his entire life and may never get it back. In the alternate reality, his family doesn't even exist. His kids don't even exist anymore. And his wife doesn't love him because she's never met him. I felt this hurt very deep in my heart. I tend to react very strongly to pain involving kids, and this was no exception. The idea that he would never see his kids again is even making me almost cry sitting here thinking about it. I just can't handle that kind of awful pain.

Side note: I seem to be extraordinarily emotional tonight, and I don't know why. I almost cried when I saw a commercial saying that we would remember forever the men and women who have given their lives to fight for our country. I almost cried while watching a show about a paralyzed woman who gave birth to twins. Just looking at those little babies made me tear up for some reason. Now I'm watching the History channel show America: The Story of Us (I would highly recommend it, by the way!), and the bombing of Pearl Harbor is making me want to cry. I suppose the link here is that 1) my husband is under the ocean and I haven't heard from him in almost a week, probably won't hear from him for many more to come, and 2) I want a baby so bad I'm already planning my nursery decorations three years in advance. So Shrek Forever After hit me very hard tonight: a man suddenly loses his entire family, his wife and kids, without saying goodbye or getting a chance to ever see them again. That hit me right in the core of my heart.

But as I said, this movie does have a happy ending (of course, it's Shrek!). One of the things I love about the Shrek franchise is their ability to capture certain facets of our culture and of human behavior. Puss has gained a ton of weight in this one, which inevitably brings to mind the growing trend of obese cats in our culture. Makes you wonder, does obesity in our pets say just as much about our culture of overindulgence as obesity in humans? Just a thought. I also feel that Shrek's fatherhood crisis very well captures how many parents feel at one time or other. It's an excellent kids movie, because kids will enjoy the jokes and animation, and parents can relate to the plotline.

I sat in front of a child when I watched it, and it was adorable to hear their comments. Of course I don't remember any of them now, but they made me smile as I sat there. I would highly recommend going to a showing with kids because it's adorable to hear their take on it.

One of the best parts about this movie? It was a mere hour and a half long. Lots of entertainment in such a short amount of time! Hurrah!

I stayed for the animated part of the credits because I was curious to see what they held. They started with bits of scenes from the first movie and continued on through the first 2 sequels. My feeling from this is that the animators chose their favorite scenes from the franchise and put them in the credits of this movie as a way to wrap things up once and for all. I don't expect any more sequels from this franchise, but this was a nice way to bring it to a close.

I would highly recommend this movie. It far exceeded my expectations. It pulled my heartstrings but ultimately left me with a smile. 5 rainbows and donkeys!

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

When Harry Met Sally (1989)

Starring Meg Ryan, Billy Crystal, Carrie Fisher, and Bruno Kirby. Directed by Rob Reiner and written by Nora Ephron.

Tagline: Can two friends sleep together and still love each other in the morning?

You know, it's funny, that tagline just about sums up the whole movie, in a way that I've never seen a tagline do before. Well done, tagline writer.

This review will be a little distorted because of the trouble I've had actually watching this film. I know, it's sad that this movie has been around for more than 20 years and I'd never seen it. That's why I was trying so hard to watch it, to see what all the fuss was about. Plus I adore Meg Ryan, so I knew it had to be good.

I checked the DVD out from the library, which might have been a mistake. The disc started skipping right around the time Harry announces his divorce, so I had to stop watching at that point. Not to be deterred, I asked our media people to clean the disc and put it back on hold. I apparently got the exact same copy back, because it made it through the scene at the game where Harry tells Jess his wife's leaving him, only to have it start skipping at the scene where Sally meets Harry in the bookstore. I took it back again and put our only other copy on hold, hoping to God it would play all the way through.

Well this was a few weeks ago. It just finally came in for me, and since I didn't start watching it until after midnight last night (I know, stupid thing to do), I figured I'd just skip the first third. I mean, I've watched the first third of the movie twice but I'd never seen the end. That might have been a mistake too. Because it's been 2 or 3 weeks since I watched the first part, I'll have to see what I can remember from that. There is some disconnect on the plot because of that, but I was up to 2am watching it as it was. I don't regret starting in the middle, only that it might have affected my opinion of the movie. Or maybe not.

A little note: this is one of those movies that  my mom said I couldn't watch as a kid because I wouldn't understand it. As such, I've gone my entire life without seeing it or even knowing what it was about, other than that a young girl or teenager was too young to understand it. Really, after watching it, my mom was quite right. But still, when you spend your entire life thinking there must be something terrible in the movie, it's hard to realize it's just a romantic comedy. With a lot of talk about sex in it. lol

My first impression when I turned on the film the first time was: "Oh my gosh, I didn't think I could ever find Billy Crystal attractive, yet there he is! Look at him!!" When they are dressed to look younger, back in the 70s, they blew my socks off. I mean, Meg Ryan still looks about like she did in this movie (God that woman is gorgeous) but Billy Crystal has changed a lot. And it's not even the fact that he was older in this film--he's actually younger in this one that my other memories. But the two movies I know him best for are City Slickers and The Princess Bride. Miracle Max is not exactly your romantic lead. I was kind of afraid when I saw the actors in this movie that I wouldn't be able to believe the love story, but Billy Crystal is really perfect for the role. He's no Hugh Jackman (Kate and Leopold is one of my all-time favorite movies), but he's got that twitchy little cynical energy that perfectly fits this character. He's funny without being the macho, manly type.

I enjoyed watching the 2 characters age. It's obvious now how dated everything is, but I have to wonder if they realized it then. There was a lot of attention to detail, because I could see an obvious difference from their dress in 1983 compared to their dress in 1989. I'll be honest, I don't even really remember what people were wearing 6 years ago. I don't remember it being all the different from what people wear now. I'm sure it was, but to be able to date the clothing by half-decades--that's quite impressive.

Meg and Billy worked really well together. Meg Ryan is one of my favorite actresses ever. She's so adorable and quirky and funny and so loving. She brings such life to all of her characters and I love her for it. In fact, she's one of the main reasons I went to see The Women, a movie that came out recently containing a sort of reunion of former lead actresses. Her quirky humor combined with Billy Crystal's quick wit was a joy to watch. He doesn't sweep her off her feet like some of her other romantic leads do, but you can see how the two of them are perfectly matched. At least in the movie. :)

One of the things I didn't like about this movie was how slowly it went about resolving the romance between them. Carrie Fisher and Bruno Kirby were wonderfully amusing and well-matched as the sidekick romantic storyline. But when their storyling started and ended in a matter of minutes, I was left disappointed that Harry and Sally were still pretending not to love each other. Then they finally slept together and I was happy. Except that Harry displayed all the tell-tale signs of being uncomfortable and wanting to bolt, and I knew things wouldn't work out the way I wanted. Sally was highly affronted--which she had every right to be--but Harry tried to put it in the past and pretend it never happened. I could see when she told him it was a mistake over dinner that he was genuinely happy to put it behind them. But she was more hurt by his willingness to ignore it so easily than she was by his speedy escape that morning. He quite sealed his doom in that moment.

And then he was trying to be sweet and loving and she was ignoring him. I can understand how you wouldn't want to be hurt by someone like that, but considering how quickly they hugged and made up after an argument earlier in the movie, you'd think she would see sense and at least let him say his piece. Especially if she's mad that he doesn't love her and yet he keeps leaving her funny messages where he sings karaoke to her (adorable!). I suppose she was right to give him his space because he seemed to need that time to think to realize that he really did want her forever.

Which plays out as he dashes across town (literally) to meet her and she tries desperately to leave a party that she can't stand to be at alone. He sees her, tells her he loves her, and she pushes him away. Then he spouts this wonderful line explaining just how much he really loves her and ends with, "When you realize you want to spend the rest of your life with someone, you want the rest of your life to start as soon as possible." Soooo sweet! But she just brushes it off, saying some nonsense about not being able to hate him when he says stuff like that. I was hoping for more of something like, "I love you too Harry! I've loved you for ages and I was just mad that you didn't love me and now we can be happy together!" I mean sure they kissed and made up, but it wasn't the glorious ending I was hoping for after all this time of knowing they were meant to be together.

I also found the ending a little abrupt. It was cute and a good way to tie in all the documentary couples that were sprinkled throughout the movie, but I actually watched about 3 minutes of the credits, waiting for extra scenes to be stuck in there. You know how some movies will have a sort of epilogue play during the credits? Well I felt I needed one of those to give me closure. Unfortunately I didn't get one, so I ended up feeling like something was still wanting from the film.

I realize that I am giving a less-than-stellar review to a film that many have claimed to be their favorite movie of all time. I apologize. I love the happy endings to be perfect and clear-cut, and I don't like to have to sludge through a lot of nonsense to get there. Not that there was a great deal of nonsense in the movie; I just felt that they could have gotten together after they slept together, or even way before that, and I would have been satisfied. Of course, then you lose the whole point of the movie, which was captured so perfectly by that tagline: "Can two friends sleep together and still love each other in the morning?"

One of the reasons the movie was hard for me to watch was their time of separation at the end. It was Christmastime and they were alone and both suffering for it, but Sally wouldn't talk to him. I really related to Harry at this point. I spent October through the beginning of January by myself last year because my husband was out to sea. It was horrible. You can't even imagine what it's like to spend the entire holiday season--Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, your wedding anniversary, and New Year's--by yourself until you've actually been through it. That was after my husband came home 3 days before Christmas the year before. We haven't spent the holiday season together since 2005. It's really hard. At least in '08 I had his homecoming to look forward to. Last year, I was just miserable. Why should I put up a tree if there's no one else here to enjoy it? Why should I put out Christmas decorations if I'll just have to put them away later? Why should I have to get people presents if I'm not even going to celebrate Christmas with anyone? and on and on. I ended up having an excellent Christmas day celebration with some friends, but the time leading up to that (and even afterwards) was a really trial for me. Our wedding anniversary is December 29th (not to mention that the anniversary of when we started dating is November 29th), so having to spend that alone on top of everything else was pure torture.

As I said, I felt Harry's pain at the end of the movie. Hearing the Christmas songs, seeing the snow and the trees and seeing him sitting alone, feeling the agony of loneliness... I know how that feels. Sure, the reasons were different, but it doesn't hurt any less. When Sally jumped into his arms on New Year's, I was actually slightly bitter and jealous. I said to the screen, "Do you know how much I wish I could have done that? That my husband would have just appeared out of nowhere to make it all better? You'd better feel happy!" I guess that may have tainted my experience. I almost felt like crying when I saw Harry walking along the streets by himself because that's such a horrible experience, spending Christmas alone when you wish with your whole heart that you could be spending it with the one you love. I couldn't fully appreciate what Sally was going through because I was feeling so upset for Harry. Again, it just felt like everyone would have been saved a whole lot of grief if they had just been able to admit that they loved each other at first. Oh well, it's not my movie.

I enjoyed the film overall. Meg and Billy were perfectly humorous and quirky together, and I felt there was some great humor in there. As a romantic film, I probably wouldn't rank it among my top 10. I won't be pulling it out whenever I need a pick-me-up because I do feel that the happy, romantic part is too long in coming. Still, for the joy it gave me while I watched it, I give it 4 rainbows.

Rating (out of 5 rainbows and ponies): 4 rainbows
Conclusion: HAPPY ENDING

Robin Hood (2010)

Starring Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, William Hurt, Mark Strong, Oscar Isaac, Matthew Macfadyen, and Kevin Durand. Directed by Ridley Scott.

A small disclaimer: I went to see this movie within an hour after finding out I was going to have to pay $1200 to have a bladder stone removed from my dog's abdomen. I might have been a little distracted.

I went into this movie without any real expectations. Robin Hood is cool, and Russell Crowe as the suppressed but badass hero in Gladiator was cool, so it had a lot of potential. Plus Cate Blanchett is wonderful, Mark Strong is becoming one of my favorite actors, and Matthew Macfadyen played Mr. Darcy! Of course, I went in simply with the knowledge that Russell Crowe was Robin Hood and Cate Blanchett was some random woman, so I can't really say I went to see it for all those actors. Those were just treats waiting to be discovered. But I also heard right before I went that it had received some bad reviews, so I went in as a completely blank slate: it could be totally kick-ass, or it could totally suck. Or it could be simply mediocre.

On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the most kickass and 1 being the worst movie ever made, I would give this movie a 6 or a 7. I enjoyed my experience overall, but there were certain parts that threw me a little bit and brought my experience of the film down. I'll try to follow my thoughts chronologically, but of course, that's rarely successful. Still, it's worth a try.

I started the film knowing only that this was meant to be a prequel to the tale of Robin Hood. I suppose I should therefore clarify my understanding of the legend of Robin Hood going in. I'll admit that my only real experience with Robin Hood is the 1973 Disney animated movie where they're all portrayed as animals, with a little bit of Robin Hood: Men in Tights thrown in there. Here's what I know about Robin Hood: he steals from the rich to give to the poor because the evil Prince John and the evil sheriff of Nottingham are overtaxing the poor to fill their coffers. He has his "merry men" and his best buddies Little John and Friar Tuck. He falls in love with the beautiful Maid Marian, who in the Disney movie seemed to be somewhat like royalty, at least in my perception as a child. Robin is the best archer in the land and gleefully uses his talents to make fools of the authorities so he can help the poor maintain their lowly but happy lifestyles. In the end, King Richard the Lion-hearted comes back to save the day and Prince John is left sucking his thumb and calling for his mama. End of story.

The following names sound familiar to me even if I can't tell you why: King Richard, King John, Loxley, Robin Hood, Little John, Friar Tuck, Maid Marian, Will, and Eleanor of Aquitaine. Obviously some of these were mentioned above, but the others sound familiar from something other than my Disney Robin Hood experience. Loxley and Eleanor of Aquitaine are particularly troubling because I don't remember how they fit in.

This movie, being a prequel, should presumably follow a line that ends with all of these characters ready to fill their roles in the great legend of Robin Hood. That was not quite the case with all the characters. King Richard died early, as did Sir Robert Loxley. These were both necessary plot points for this movie, but they left me confused. If King Richard dies, how is he supposed to save the day when Prince John ruins his country? I still can't figure out why the name Loxley is familiar (perhaps it's from Men in Tights?), but if he's so familiar to me, how is it possible that he died before the famous tale began? Unless there is some alternative way that the story goes (and believe me, I'm not so naive as to think the Disney version is the definitive version), I don't understand how these characters can have passed on so early. So that left me wondering throughout the movie what I was missing.

Another problem early on: a strange desire to turn off the television. Do you ever get that feeling, when you're just sitting in front of the TV and watching some mindless movie, that you have something better you could be doing? I tend to sit down in front of the TV and become so entranced that hours will pass before I feel strong enough to turn it off. So when I am hit by a sudden urge to turn off the TV and do something more productive, I feel strangely free from its bonds and figure I'd better take advantage of the feeling and turn it off straight away. Well, I had that feeling toward the beginning of Robin Hood. I am highly entertained by noble stories of battles, but sometimes they just don't hold my attention. This movie started with King Richard fighting battles on his way back from the Crusades (already?), and since I wasn't entirely sure what was going on, I found my attention wandering. Of course I didn't leave, but it was very strange for me to have that urge. I suspect it may have had something to do with the fact that I felt so terrible about my little doggie's bladder stone, but I don't remember thinking about it specifically when I had the desire to stop watching. I just figured I could find something more interesting to do.

The movie did get more interesting. I particularly liked their attention to historical detail. They portrayed these characters as they really would have been, dirty and with grimy clothes and slogging through the mud. I liked that. I sometimes feel that we romanticize the middle ages, but this did not have pretty ladies in sparkly dresses scampering around their palace. Instead, there were men (and women) slogging it out in the fields, trying to plant and push their wagons and live life like it must have been in 1199. I was very impressed by that.

I also find that I appreciate stories like this more as I get older because I actually understand something about history. When I saw that it was set it 1199, I immediately put it into the historical context of the Norman invasion of 1066, this being less than 150 years after that (the movie introduces you to the tension between England and France right off the bat, so considering their history is important to understanding what has brought them to this point). I also have studied the Tudor reign, particularly during the time of Henry VIII, quite a bit. Seeing how fitfully arrogant King Henry was has opened my eyes to the way royalty really acted back then. There was no gentle king with his lovely princess who wed her to the handsome prince. Sure, Sleeping Beauty makes for a nice story, but the monarchy was much messier than that. In the court, there was intrigue and the king's hogwash about "god's divine power" and someone always trying to get ahead by playing to the king's favor and stepping on someone else. Below that, there seemed to be very little attention paid to what the actual commonpeople were dealing with. Kings felt free to overtax the people to fund their own exorbitant and expensive lifestyles, as well as the wars they waged to win themselves glory. [see the French monarchy just before the French Revolution in 1789 as a great example]

It is vital to understand this aspect of history to appreciate this version of Robin Hood. Prince John eagerly awaits the day he will become king, and within moments of hearing that his brother has died, leaving him the crown, he already shows his selfishness by refusing any reward to Robin for traveling the perilous road to bring him the news. Instead, he giggles and remarks that as Robin's father owes back taxes, the king will keep his gift as payment. Not a good omen.

I suppose at this point I should take a step back, as Robin was not actually "Robin" at that point. There was a great deal of intrigue leading up to this point--in sum, an Englishman named Godfrey has allied himself with the French to overthrow the English monarchy and rule all of England himself. He plots to kill King Richard, who dies before he can kill him. But he ends up killing a bunch of the king's knights in the process, including one named Sir Robert Loxley. He's the only one left alive with Robin and his men find them, and he asks Robin to take the crown to England and return his sword to his father in Nottingham. Robin agrees and he and his men take on the cloaks of the knights because knights are much more respected than mere archers.

A side note--that was another part of history that I appreciated about this movie. Because we have all grown to love the story of the good-hearted archer Robin Hood and his men, we tend to assume that archers were on par with knights in the eyes of the people. Not so. Several different times, this movie makes mention of the fact that archers (or "yeomen") are almost a joke in their culture. It's important to understand just how lowly Robin started to be able to appreciate how far he climbed simply on his own merit.

So we have Robin sailing back to England with the crown of England under the name of Loxley, and the king reminds "Loxley" that is father owes him money. Thankfully all of Richard's knights have been away in the Crusades for 10 years, so no one knows he's just an impersonator.

Robin sets out for Nottingham to return Loxley's sword, and he discovers a saying cut into its hilt that seems to remind him of his childhood, which until this point has been very vague, even for him. Half of the movie is spent explaining who Robin's father was and how he is (sort of) important to the plot later on. Long story short, he goes to Nottingham (aha, the stage is set for our legend!), meets Maid Marian, is asked to continue portraying Loxley by Marian's father-in-law (oh yes, Marian was married to Loxley before the wars, before she even met Robin--so does that mean she's not really Maid Marian anymore??), and goes about his business pretending to be a knight returned from war, married to Maid Marian, all so that if Loxley Sr. dies, Marian can keep her land and Robin can learn more about his family.

Now at this point, I recognized a feature of some of my favorite romance novels. I love it when the two characters are forced to be married before they love each other, because it makes anything they do afterward totally legit. They were already married, after all! Of course, I don't know that Marian and Robin hardly even kissed in this movie, but I liked knowing that at any time, if they felt like consummating their "marriage," they could do so. Adds a nice element to the movie. :)

Blah blah blah, I'm terrible at summarizing... I guess the point I'm trying to make is that this movie was much more complicated than I expected. Not in a bad way, but certainly more than I realized going into it. Godrey wanted the English crown, so he teamed up with the French to invade England, all the while stirring up dissent in the north over taxation. Again, some understanding of English history is handy here. Robin is not really Robin but Loxley to half the characters, and he gets married to Marian before he even knows her, and the church is involved in stealing the villagers' grain (which is where Friar Tuck comes in, saying "I've never been much of a churchy friar." hehe PS he's a beekeeper?) I didn't realize Robin's sidekick was Little John until about 3/4 of the way through the movie, which I suppose makes his other two helpers known merry men as well. In addition to all this, the newly crowned King John has married a French princess and fired his chief counselor to put Godfrey in his position and disrespects his mother, who is apparently Eleanor of Aquitaine, and acts like a petulant child who is sent by God to destroy the lives of everyone in England. There's A LOT going on in this movie.

There is very little humor in this movie, but I'll share some of my favorite lines:

Loxley Sr. to Robin: "You will dine with us tonight, but first you will bathe. You stink." lol (a great reference to the fact that medieval times were disgusting!)

Robin and Marian talking about her marriage to Loxley Jr.: "Yes, we were married for a week and then he went off to war. I barely even knew him."
Robin: "A good (k)night."
Marian: "Short but sweet, yes."
Robin: "No, I meant that he was a good man, a good knight..."
Marian: *blushes scarlet* "Oh, of course..."
haha You have to hear that one to appreciate it, but it was hilarious.

One thing I didn't like was how Robin went from just wanting to get out of the Crusades to suddenly fighting on behalf of the people of Nottingham and falling in love with Marian. They hardly talk to each other, so it's hard to see how they would fall in love so quickly. Plus why would Robin care if the grain was taken by the church, and why would he bother to plant it in secret? He's only been there like 2 days and there's no guarantee he'll be staying. I just thought it was a bit contrived.

Other than that, the rest of the plot seemed believable. I could never figure out what King John was going to do, if he was going to cut down his rebels or use them to defeat France, but I suppose that was the point. He is utterly selfish and no matter what he says, you must always assume that he will only do what serves him best. He seemed a bit wishy washy, but as it was all in the name of what he wanted at the moment, I suppose it makes sense.

This movie, while enjoyable overall, does not ever reach the scope or emotional pull of Gladiator, that other most famous product of Ridley Scott's direction and production and Russell Crowe's acting. Russell Crowe was also a producer on this one, which probably comes with his enormous fame as well as his previous experience working with Scott. I suspect the reason this movie was not as good was simply the script. It seemed too rooted in the grandiose to be able to capture the individual agony that was so vital to the story in Gladiator. Sure, there were battles and combat in that one, but I felt that Robin Hood was nearly all battles and combat, without sufficiently leaving time for character development. It's like they wanted us to see what kind of movers and shakers these characters were even before they became known for the legends they are today, without giving us the emotional connection that makes them so popular.

I remember quite enjoying the movie when I walked out of the theater. I wasn't whistling or giggling like I sometimes do after a great movie, but I was glad I had gone to see it. I felt like I got a little glimpse into history, like I understood a little bit more about what life was like back then, even if I couldn't quite match up all the dangling storylines with where they fit in the plot of Robin Hood as we know him, defender of the poor and bane of the rich. I even found myself contemplating the way the king behaved the next day without even remembering where I had gotten such an image--it took a good 30 seconds of contemplation before I was able to place the memory as coming from the movie. I know I shouldn't take my history from Hollywood, but it speaks highly for this movie that I felt it so accurately portrayed politics in the middle ages that I had already committed its scenes into my memory.

Some random observations to end this monstrosity of a review: The absolute strangest moment in the movie was when I looked at the sheriff of Nottingham, really looked at him, and realized he was played by Matthew Macfadyen, beloved actor of Mr. Darcy! To go from having his pleading eyes as Mr Darcy take my breath away to being disgusted by the liberties he took with Marian was quite a shock. He's really a dufus in this movie, meant to be mocked in every way. You would never know it was him if you weren't paying attention. What a shock. From dreamy Austen hunk to despised slimeball sheriff of Nottingham. Who woulda thunk.

I really enjoyed the French in this movie. I feel that when two cultures are represented in a way that reflects what actually happened at the time, you feel like you are seeing a more authentic presentation of history. All French people in this movie spoke French, with Godrey even switching into French when it suited him to address his allies (Mark Strong has an excellent French accent, huge kudos to him!). Even Robin spoke French for a moment when demanding that his French opponents surrender, and I felt this lent a huge dose of credibility to the story. If Robin had shouted "Stop!" the French would have had no idea what he was saying. But when he shouted "Arretez!" you immediately understood that he was addressing the French in a way that they would understand and respond to. I really liked that.

Overall, this was a very pretty movie that brought in historical elements to make the story feel more real. Certain parts of the plot seemed to be stretched to their thinnest point to be able to give this movie its own plot but still maintain the integrity of the original Robin Hood story. At times I was distracted by it but at others, I appreciated their creativity. Because I left the theater with a smile on my face, I will give this movie 3 proud stallions.

Rating (out of 5 rainbows and ponies): 3 proud stallions
Conclusion: HAPPY ENDING

-PrincessM

Letters to Juliet (2010)

Starring Amanda Seyfried, Christopher Egan, Vanessa Redgrave, and Gael García Bernal.

I was really excited to see this movie for several reasons. First, I love romantic comedies. Second, Amanda Seyfried and Christopher Egan are both attractive people (I've never seen Christopher Egan before, so I was quite taken with his charming British smile). I like watching pretty people fall in love with a fairytale ending. Third, it clearly involved 2 love stories--one between Sophie (Amanda) and Charlie (Christopher), and another between Charlie's grandmother and her long lost love. Two love stories for the price of one, hooray! Fourth, it takes place in Italy, a beautiful backdrop for a romance. You could hardly go wrong with all those things going for it.

Overall, I thought the movie was just mediocre. Either my standards for romantic comedies have risen or they just don't make 'em like they used to. I had the exact same complaints on this one as the last one (The Back-Up Plan): the romantic lead, while attractive, is only mediocreally acted and is far too formulaic to be believeable. I want to be swept off my feet by this glorious silver screen lover, but so far I've been having trouble finding such a man. The previews make Charlie look positively adorable and charming, but his character is far from that. I'll go through the basics of the actors before I jump into his character in detail.

First, Amanda Seyfried is a mixed bag for me. I wasn't very fond of her in Mamma Mia, which was my first exposure to her (and in which, ironically, she also played a character named Sophie). She played a very different character in Dear John, but I can't say I was terribly fond of her in that one either, though that was more her character than her acting. Still, for some reason I was excited when I saw this movie. I wasn't at all hesitant because she was in it. She was pretty good in this one. She is a pretty, sweet romantic lead with a bit of a carefree lightness that makes her cute. She's no Julia Roberts, but she does alright. I fear that she'll never be able to do much more than play the wide-eyed, sweet young girl, but she plays that part well.

Christopher Egan is entirely new to me. Although, apparently after looking at his profile, he was Eragon's older brother Roran in the 2006 film adaptation of that most excellent book by Christopher Paolini. I'm disappointed the movie didn't do better because the continuation of the series would make for some exciting sequels. But I digress. I don't remember him in that movie at all. I think I recognize him from some commercials about a show about British royalty, and that seems to line up with his role in the TV show "Kings." But can I just say that I just read the synopsis of the show and it's not at all what I thought it was? lol I think it's about the British monarchy every time I see it because he reminds me so much of Prince William. I don't even know what part he plays in that show, but he seems to fit the regal British mold very well. That carries over a bit into this movie, where he plays a rather pompous British lad who seems to have been brought up on the high side of things. Of course, he's no monarch, but he does have the pride to make up for it.

Mostly, he was handsome in this movie. I'll give him that. He's surprisingly tan for a British person (turns out he's from Australia) and is strikingly handsome. From the hips up, he looks great. Why only from the hips up, you ask? He has this really awkward way of walking that severely detracts from his handsomeness. You want such a cool, attractive guy to also have a cool, attractive walk, but he seems to be slightly duck-footed or something. At any rate, when you watch him walk into a shot from the waist up, he looks positively handsome. When you watch him walk into the frame with his whole body, he looks extremely awkward. It's a bit odd. But you can tell he's taken care of himself, because he's got a good body otherwise and as I said, he's quite tan. I judge him mostly on his looks because that's what I liked best about him. More on that later. I'm such a tease! :)

I love Vanessa Redgrave. That was another reason I knew I would like this movie. I can't even tell you a single other film she's been in, but she's so familiar to me. She's great. And she was wonderful in this movie. She was playfully childish when her grandson was being clenched and uptight, lovingly affectionate when Sophie needed a friend, and believably starry-eyed and terrified in turns as she went on a journey to find her lost love. She was a joy to watch. Is it funny that I just checked and the only other thing I've seen her in is Atonement? I was apparently so affected by that movie that I give its actors much more weight than normal--I do the same thing for Saoirse Ronan and Michelle Duncan. Still, Vanessa Redgrave has a gigantic resume. It's not her fault I haven't watched any of the movies she's been in. She was wonderful in Atonement; she moved me to tears at the end. She was equally wonderful in this movie, and also nearly moved me to tears again. Wonderful actress, truly wonderful.

I don't have much to say about Gael García Bernal because I've never seen him before. I assumed he was Italian in the movie because his character is opening an Italian restaurant and making trips to Italy, but I'm not so sure. He kept speaking Spanish, but I could never tell if I understood it because Italian is like Spanish or if it was because he was really Spanish. He used the word "vale," which as far as I know is only used in Spain. But what do I know? Sophie also made a comment in the middle of the movie that confused me, something to the effect of "Now that we're in Italy, he thinks he's Italian." I don't know. The actor himself is Mexican and the name of the character is Victor. What do you think?

Bernal's character is not meant to be likeable. I mean, he's full of bubbly energy and he's obviously passionate about food, but you can see from the start that his cooking comes before his fiancee (Sophie). As such, it's hard for me to like the man himself. I'm very bad about projecting character traits onto actors when I don't know much about them. I don't know if he's as spastic and overenthusiastic as his character, but I feel like you have to have some characteristics of the character you're playing to truly play them believably. I suppose I would have to see more of him to pass proper judgment on him.

Now that I've commented on the actors, it's time to move to the characters. Sophie was a nice character, unfortunately ignored and suppressed (somewhat accidentally) by her fiance, but she eventually matures and grows out of the phase where she allows that to happen. That's nice to see. She's hopelessly romantic, and she has as few of the predictable standards of romantic leads--her mother left when she was young, she wants to be a writer but she's too afraid to stand up to her boss at work, she wants it to work out with her fiance but secretly she knows it's not working (so she's essentially emotionally available to the true romantic lead). Her loneliness leads her to a group of ladies that answer pleas to Juliet for help, and it is through this that she meets Charlie and Claire.

Enter Charlie. I knew the instant he walked into that room that we were set up for a predictable romance. I felt such a sense of letdown in that moment. He stomped his way in and declared that he didn't like Sophie, so she glared up at him and announced she didn't like him either. I'll be the first to admit that tense, coy banter between romantic interests is what makes a love plot so enjoyable. They think they hate each other, but then the fiery angry passion turns to fiery loving passion, and voila, a happy couple is born. I quite enjoy that formula. But is it sad that I've read enough romance novels to already be tiring of its predictability? The previews make Charlie seem to be genuine and happy, and head over heels for Sophie. Ah, would that it had been that way. I would have fallen quite hard for his character if he had displayed such traits. But instead, they bought into that old standby of fuming-enemies-turned-passionate-lovers. At the first sign of petulant dislike, I knew that we were going to see them slowly realize that they don't hate each other but rather love each other. You hate knowing that so early on...

Charlie is a self-proclaimed cynic and realist. He thrives on knowing that he is more practical and realistic than everyone else, so he is against the whole escapade from the start. Sophie and Claire, his grandmother, both romantic hearts, set out with a quest to find true love. Charlie sets out to convince Claire to stop the nonsense and just fly back home. Of course he blames Sophie for getting them into this mess and she can't believe he's such a prick. Claire provides a wonderfully sensitive but funny connection between the two. She just wants to find her Lorenzo, and the other two are there to help her along the way and add further romantic interest for the audience.

Charlie also has some unfortunate traits that, like Sophie, feel tired and overused. His parents died when he was young. He went to a good school and prances around like he's better than everyone else. He uses several funny British phrases, though I suppose that's just good character background. When I found out they were both half orphans, I just had to roll my eyes. Isn't there any other good pity factor out there? Surely they could have bonded over something else.

I had a few problems with how quick the turnaround seemed to be from hatred to love on Charlie's part. I mean, sure, it's every girl's dream to have such a handsome guy go from hating your guts to suddenly turning starry-eyed when he looks at you, but it was a bit too fast to be believeable to me. Within a couple of days he was already making strange comments about them sleeping together, which obviously embarrassed both of them when the full connotation was realized. It was too early in the already-unpleasant relationship to be making these kinds of jokes, so it felt out of place.

But I'll admit, there were several perfectly played moments where real human reactions were displayed. Charlie intrudes into Sophie's room to see how she's doing? I'm not sure--it's obvious he just wanted to see her (12 hours after proclaiming to dislike her). She shoves him out and tells him to just go to bed, and he makes a comment about wondering if this was one of those times when she meant the opposite of what she was saying. If you are playing along that he has so suddenly gone from hating her to liking her, this is utterly adorable. In the same instant that I considered how I would feel if I were in that situation, I saw Sophie display the very same reaction. She paused for a moment in confusion, and then a tiny smile crept onto her lips as she realized that he was starting to fall for her. Even engaged as she was, some part of her was highly amused and flattered at his new attentions. I quite liked that part because it felt so real, and captured that first giddy moment when you start to realize there might be a spark. There were a couple of other moments like that, and they were highly enjoyable. So few movies nowadays take the time to show that the character might first be confused by the attention of the romantic lead, and then find that they secretly enjoy it. I liked that this movie captured that emotion very well.

So while there were highly enjoyable moments of real romance, there were also the other bits that just felt like necessary parts of the formula. Angry + Time Together = Love, of course. Didn't you know that? Charlie was much more charming when he stopped being so purposefully obnoxious to Sophie (there was really too much going on with Claire's love plot to allow for him to be such a bully in the beginning). I would have liked him much better if they'd skipped the temporary and seemingly false anger at the beginning. When he starts spouting sonnets at the end, you just have to raise your eyebrows and go, "This is just a bit too cheesy for me." Even in a movie about Romeo and Juliet, you can't mix your realism and your fairytale to that extent.

The movie was filmed in a variety of beautiful locations. Judging by the credit list of nearly all Italian names, I would guess they shot on location. It's set in Verona initially, but they travel all around Sienna in their quest to find Lorenzo. I enjoyed the shots of the countryside and the cities, and I appreciated their attempt to show wide shots of them walking or talking in front of beautiful (and I'm sure, recognizable) structures and locations. However, I was distracted by the director's frequent use of extreme close-ups, particularly in the car scenes. I don't know how people normally show shots of a single person in the back seat, but every time it flashed to a grainy close-up of Sophie's face from the neck up, I couldn't help thinking that a wider shot would have looked better. I suppose they were trying to cut out distractions from the foreground, but I would rather see some of the headrests in the shot than feel like the shot is too close to capture the mood of the scene. Mostly these were limited to the car scenes, as I said, but I noticed it 5 or 6 different times, and it's never good when your audience is distracted from the plot by the way you choose to film its progression. Still, this was a minor complaint in comparison to the visually lush setting of the rest of the movie.

I would give this movie 3 ponies and a unicorn. The leads were attractive and the romantic storyline for the older couple not only provided humor in the movie but nearly brought you to tears because it was so beautiful. Filmed in the Tuscan countryside in Italy, the movie is a lush cinematic treat for the eyes even beyond the actors on the screen. My mom came out of the theater positively beaming, so it's clear that not everyone is as affected by Charlie's abrupt turnaround as I was. Two love stories for the price of one--and one set in Italy, no less--is hard to beat. If you're in the mood for a pretty romantic comedy that sticks to the tried-and-true anger+time=love formula, you'll enjoy this movie. If not, skip this and see something like Iron Man 2, or Robin Hood, which also came out this weekend. We've also got Shrek 4 coming up and a really promising romantic comedy from Ashton Kutcher and Katherine Heigl coming up June 4 (Killers). Letters to Juliet is not a must-see amongst such titans, but it will bring a smile to your lips and a glow to your heart. If that's what you're looking for, then I highly recommend it!

Rating (out of 5 rainbows and ponies): 3 ponies and a unicorn
Conclusion: happy ending

Iron Man 2 (2010)

Starring Robert Downey Jr, Don Cheadle, Gwenyth Paltrow, Scarlett Johansson, Mickey Rourke, Sam Rockwell, Samuel L. Jackson, and Clark Gregg.

What an enjoyable franchise. I will preface this appropriately by saying I have watched both the first and second Iron Man films today, so this review will probably mix the two together abominably. But they're both awesome, so get over it. :)

I didn't plan ahead very well on preparing myself to see this movie, and it was only last night around midnight that I started to get the Iron Man fever. I am ashamed to say I only saw Iron Man once in theaters and never again, despite liking it immensely when I saw it. I thought it was timely and poignant and, of course, awesomely superheroish. But for some reason I lumped it in with those other manly movies I don't like to watch when I have options like Pride and Prejudice sitting around, so I never picked it up again. It's quite surprising, because my husband and I liked it enough to buy a genuine copy of it (we don't do that very often anymore).

So this morning I woke up undecided, should I spend my entire day watching Iron Man or should I go out and enjoy the sunshine? Around noon I decided it was definitely an Iron Man kind of day. So I plunked myself down on the couch to watch the first one so I would be properly prepared to see the 2nd one at the 3:00 showing. And we're off!

I had forgotten just how good the first one really was. I repeat all those sentiments I had when I watched it the first time. It's a rich guy fighting terrorists in the middle east. You can't get much more timely and appropriate than that. He's unfailingly charming and charismatic, and Robert Downey Jr looks quite spiffy in all his expensive suits and tight tank tops. He's very fit and looks every bit the hero, with that mischievous side that makes him all the more interesting. Tony Stark is a totally different breed of superhero--he's womanizing, cocky, and has apparently unlimited resources at his disposal. His wealth puts him in league with Batman, but whereas Bruce Wayne is brooding and secretive, and very dark in his tactics, Tony Stark is all about flair and drama. It makes him so fun to watch. And whereas Peter Parker as Spiderman is mousy and adorable, Tony would do things to Mary Jane that Peter Parker couldn't even imagine. *wink wink* :)

Robert Downey Jr is such a joy to watch in this role. I was not familiar with him before this role, but I watched a Bio of him last night and my goodness he's been around the block a time or two! Apparently he was part of the brat pack back in the 80's and was involved in a huge drug scandal in the 90's/2000's. Mid-2000's he cleaned up his act and boy are we glad he did! Iron Man was his big (re)breakout film in 2008, and since then he's done things like Tropic Thunder and Sherlock Holmes--another fantastic venue for him to display his charismatic, mischievous and, yes, brilliant side. It's actually a role very similar to Tony Stark, but I won't go into too much detail. Suffice it to say that he plays these roles brilliantly.

In Iron Man 2, he's much more introspective. At the end of Iron Man, he announces to the world that he is indeed the metal-clad hero known as Iron Man. He has used this role to catapault him to world fame, and world domination, in a way. He has brought peace to the entire planet, because everyone's too terrified to cross him. The Senate is determined to comandeer his technology for use in the military, but Tony denies them, saying that he's doing just fine, and walks out of his hearing to a boisterous standing ovation. It's clear that he is America's darling, their white knight, their very own superhero, and they love him for it.

His role as keeper of world peace is threatened when a new villain appears, holding the key to make arc technology equal to Tony's although he did not steal it like the previous villain did. Through this character, we begin to see the not-so-pretty history of the Stark family. Hushed up secrets like scientific partners who were deported to other countries when they threatened the Stark legacy. This lightning-weilding villain is a product of these secrets, so his beef is with Tony Stark in particular, not with the rest of the world.

Ivan Vanko is a very interesting anti-hero. Mickey Rourke plays him excellently. He's not your typical superhero villain because you can really relate to him. Tony's father cheated his father (in his opinion, at least), and he is bent on destroying what Tony has inherited thanks to his father's foul play. This sets up a villain that is specifically bent on destroying Iron Man himself, meaning Tony Stark is in more personal danger rather than trying to save the world like in other superhero films. Fortuitously (or not, really), Vanko teams up with and is funded by a rich yuppie competitor of Stark's, Justin Hammer. He's a total pansy, so he doesn't really understand what he's taking on when he promises to fund Vanko's project to destroy Tony Stark.

Because really, I'd say they both have the same goal: destroy Tony Stark. They just see that goal in a different light--Hammer wants to put Stark out of business and Vanko wants to completely destroy everything about him--his legacy, his company, and of course, the man himself. This creates a little bit of a problem, but I won't say more than that.

Beyond all the new bad guys out to get him, Tony's got his own problems. The palladium chip he's been using to power his heart and suit is slowly poisoning him, so that time is clicking away faster and faster in the background. He engages in several bouts of reckless behavior as a result of this fear of his immediate death, and this heightens the story. He also starts to admit that he's genuinely attracted to Pepper, but he's done so much to push her away that it doesn't look entirely promising for him. His introspection adds a layer of depth to the Iron Man persona, because he's not just Tony Stark strutting around and feeling like he's on top of the world anymore--now he knows his time is limited and he just can't seem to get a grip on the fact that he's facing the end of his life.

Enter Natalie Rushman, the secretary he hires to replace Pepper when he makes her his CEO. Let's just say this woman is more than she appears. She's on the trailers, but I never knew which side she was fighting for. She's got some amazingly kick-ass fighting in this movie, so for any Scarlett fans, it will be a treat. Plus that woman was blessed with an amazing body so she looks good in her little leotard thing. I'm shallow, I know, but I like to watch pretty superheroes. This movie delivers.

I was highly amused by the entrance of Don Cheadle as Tony's new military sidekick, specifically because he's not new. Don Cheadle really doesn't look anything like Terrence Howard other than they're both not white (Don's much darker than Terrence), but he filled the shoes excellently. Terrence played a perfect hesitant military liason in the first movie, Don stepped in to play the bad-ass sidekick in this one. There was a very cheeky scene when he first entered the movie and I'm half convinced it was smart-alec ad-libbing between Robert Downey Jr and Don Cheadle in reference to the fact that it was a completely different actor for such a pivotal role when the entire rest of the cast was back. But it was an excellent, good-natured way to handle the change and allowed you to just move on with the movie.

The effects in this movie were great, of course. I can't even imagine what a huge budget they must have had on this movie. I mean, they probably had a crazy budget on the first one, but by this sequal--my oh my. They probably had an unlimited amount of funds. It was impressive without being overly showy. I loved it. Perhaps the best part about watching a superhero in a metallic suit is that you're pretty well convinced he can't die. Bullets, fire, nothing affects him. The greatest threat comes from within--the deadly palladium, a malfunctioning suit, that sort of thing. So I can watch the fight scenes almost without fear because I'm so utterly convinced that he can't be broken. It's a pleasant feeling.

This was also a very brainy movie. It's similar to Batman, where a lot of the technology to be "super" has to be formulated by man himself; there are no superpowers here. The first one was just impressive that he came up with this stuff on his own, but by the 2nd one, they've got to think of new ways to wow the audience. Several of the characters in this one were at some point described as physicists, and I would say they definitely fit that description. There was one point when he was working on something so scientific and so out there, that I just sat there and thought my god, this must be what scientists do. They think about stuff that no one else can even comprehend. It's unusual to be sitting in a movie and feel like you're in an over-your-head science lecture, but as the scene was integral to the plotline of the movie, you sort of forgive them for the heady content. You're not really supposed to understand anyway, but you get a real sense of just how brilliant Tony Stark is. If he can understand what's going on to begin with, and then know how to act on it, well that's one serious genius.

I felt that Iron Man 2 lived up to Iron Man but in different ways. This was more introspective, more about Tony the man rather than Tony on his way to becoming Iron Man. Even the villain had a sensitive side that you could relate to, so that added depth to the fight as well. It was funny and charming and had its full gamut of shiny and impressive special effects, so it was a very enjoyable film to watch. Plus, of course, it has a happy ending, so you can't go wrong.

Is there another sequel on the way? That's a great question. If they can make 4 Shrek movies then they can certainly make 3 Iron Man movies. Spiderman was a great trilogy, and Pirates of the Caribbean is another example of a mega-blockbuster franchise that was able to make 3 great movies that were very well attended. I would plan on there being another one as long as all the actors are on board. The scene at the end of the credits on the first one hinted at the Avengers possibly getting together, but so far nothing on that, just another Iron Man movie. The end of this movie also hinted at a future that includes an Avengers movie, but they seemed to write Tony Stark out of it this time. I'll be honest, I'm not really familiar with the Avengers or Iron Man in their comic forms, so I can't even tell you who all is in the Avengers. I do know, however, that Iron Man must be among them or they wouldn't be mentioned in both movies. Perhaps Robert Downey Jr has lost interest in doing an Avengers movie? Perhaps Don Cheadle will pick up the role in his own Iron Man suit? Or perhaps they're going to write him out entirely. I'm not sure. The scene at the end of the second movie also hinted at another superhero on the way, but since I don't know anything about comic books, I didn't get it. I suspect it was another Avenger, but I would have to talk to an Avengers fan to know for sure. It's safe to say, at least, that some sort of sequelishness is on its way. Whether it's directly related to Iron Man, I'm not sure.

This was a great movie. I would highly recommend it, especially if you liked the first one. Robert Downey Jr as Tony Stark is an amusing, charismatic (not to mention good-looking) hero, and his Iron Man suit kicks ass. Don Cheadle is an equally excellent sidekick, and the villain is believable, relatable, and yet still frightening in his quiet menace. And if you can't be impressed by the acting, then by all means go for the effects. You won't be disappointed! I give this 5 rainbows and ponies, my full recommendation!

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

-PrincessM

Edit: I just discovered that Robert Downey Jr is slated to star in sequels for the following: Sherlock Holmes (2011), The Avengers (2012), and Iron Man 3 (2012).

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (2009)

Starring Ben Stiller, Amy Adams, Owen Wilson, Steve Coogan, Hank Azaria, Robin Williams, Ricky Gervais, Bill Hader, and Jonah Hill.

I remember being enormously charmed by the first Night at the Museum, so I was excited when I saw they were coming out with a sequel. Then it came out at the same time as 5 other movies I wanted to watch and it just passed me by. It quietly left the theater before I really knew I had missed it. So I've only now just finally sat down to watch it. The holds list for this movie was gigantic at the library, so it's taken me a few months to get it. Here is my impression.

It was mediocre film. Part of the joy of the first one was its freshness. He works at a museum where the magic golden tablet brings everyone to life at sundown. There were people pulled from history that you never expected to be able to meet, and instead of being terrible or impressive or anything that they have become through the eyes of history, you saw the essential humanness of every one of them. Ben Stiller's character, Larry, grew and matured through his experience in the film, and you left with a great warm, fuzzy feeling.

I'll admit I haven't watched the first one in a while. I cannot believe it came out in 2006. That seems so long ago! Perhaps it's been since then that I actually watched it. All I remembered was that it was a really good movie. So I was a bit startled when this one started out with Larry being a hugely successful entrepreneur and owner of his own made-for-TV business. I didn't remember that from the first one, which shows that the first lesson in watching sequels is to watch the first one first.

He goes back to the museum and discovers all the exhibits are being packed up to be sent into storage to be replaced by holographic, talking images of themselves. It seriously cheapens the experience. So Larry decides to fight to get them back and ends up following them down to the Federal Archives under the Smithsonian in Washington, DC to save them.

This is where it turns unbelievably predictable. This would be a great family film because kids would be too naive to see what was coming Every time you meet a new character. I felt like they were just sticking characters in there so they could play off their stereotypes. Or like with Amelia Earhart, so they could create strange new ones for them.

Most of the old favorites are back--Jed, Caesar, Sacajawea, Dexter the monkey, and others. New characters include the old Egyptian prince's older brother, Kahmunrah, who acts as the nemesis in this one, Al Capone, General Custer, Ivan the Terrible, and Napoleon Bonaparte. You can begin to see some of the stereotypes already, can't you? Al Capone was in black and white, strutted around like a tough guy with his machine gun, and was a stereotypical mobster. Custer had has familiar giant moustache and was decidedly stupid and overconfident. Napoleon was short and obsessed with height. He was also, of course, French, so they got some French jokes in at his expense as well.

Amelia Earhart was one of the weirdest characters of them all. She was very flirtatious, obsessed with her relationship with Larry, and even kissed him a couple of different times. I'm sorry, but a romance between a night guard and a wax figure just isn't believable. I mean, you don't really even want them to fall in love because that's just awkward. So while I love Amy Adams, I felt that this role was really poorly written. Why is Amelia kissing Larry again?

And then there's Honest Abe (the statue in the Lincoln Memorial). Another stereotype they took too far. He states quite clearly that they make a cute couple and demands that it must be true because he's Honest Abe. He says several things that are meant to poke fun at his inability to lie, but the feel disingenuous and predictable.

The overall credibility of the movie just wasn't there for me. They ran around to all the different parts of the Smithsonian (it stretches over several buildings around the Mall), acting like it was no big deal. In and out of front doors at night like there was nothing to it. Do any of these other museums have night guards? Do they even have locks on their doors? Then, just how convenient was it that he was carrying the tablet with him everywhere he went so that he was awaking everything he met. Very convenient.

It all felt very formulaic and specifically calculated to create the most jokes. Not the best jokes, just the most. Like I said, good for families, not good for a single person sitting at home, trying to watch intelligent entertainment.

The one part I really enjoyed was an interaction between Ben Stiller and Jonah Hill as a security guard in the Smithsonian (during the day, of course). I feel that those two have very similar, natural kinds of comedy that meshed well in the scene. They were appropriately funny and I suspect there may have been a bit of ad-libbing in there. They had good comedic chemistry and really, it was the highlight of the film (sad to say it peaked so early on...).

Overall, this movie was a little too feel-good for my tastes. Make me feel happy inside, but do it in a way I'm not expecting, please; don't insult my intelligence. I have to give this movie just one rainbow and a horse's arse.

Rating (out of five rainbows and ponies): One rainbow and the back end of a pony
Conclusion: HAPPY ENDING

Kick-Ass (2010)

Starring Aaron Johnson, Mark Strong, Nicolas Cage, Chloe Moretz, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and Craig Ferguson.

First, let's discuss why I recognize each of the listed cast members, as I find that recognizing actors in movies can make them more enjoyable (especially with this type of movie). Aaron Johnson is the lead in this movie, and to be honest, that's the only reason he's on there. He's not been in much else. So moving on.

A sleek, lean Mark Strong plays the villain in this movie. I recognize him very strongly from Stardust (the first movie I remember seeing him in) as Septimus, but he's also been in Sherlock Holmes, Body of Lies, Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day, Tristan + Isolde, and he's apparently in the upcoming Robin Hood as well (yay!). He looked really good in this movie. I mean, not like, mmmm-he's-tasty he looks good (he is bald in this movie, after all), but he seems to have some nice lean muscle under his tailored suits. I don't know, I just like looking at a fit man.

And let me digress back to Aaron Johnson. My first paragraph writes him off like he's inconsequential. Perhaps I should note a few of the things in this movie, his first big role, that I liked. First, he plays a total geek but you can tell when the glasses come off and the curls move off his forehead that there's a secret chiseled hunk hiding under there. Also, it takes a confident man with a good body to be able to parade around in a thin green wetsuit for most of the movie, so he's in pretty good shape. He's got just the body type I like, lean but still obviously fit. You can tell I like looking at that type of body when I even mention that 47-year-old Mark Strong looks nice. lol He also played this role really well. He fits the geeky but secretly heroic and handsome role very well. His IMDB page makes him look very full of himself, but perhaps he's still too focused on breaking out to be able to loosen up on the red carpet. He is very lovable in this movie, so I don't know. At least, don't judge him by the pictures on his page, because I don't think he could play this role well if he didn't have at least a little bit of a shy geek in there somewhere.

So back to the other actors I recognized. Nicolas Cage. Of course. He's been in like half the movies ever made. lol I don't want to list them all because then I'd have to find their IMDB pages and link them, but let's suffice it to say that he's one of the most recognizable faces in Hollywood. This was an enjoyable role for him, because he gets to be Big Daddy, aka real-life Batman, and who doesn't like seeing people you recognize turn into superheroes? lol Plus he had this funny little mustache that I quite liked. Not like, I thought it looked good on him, but it was quite amusing and he seemed to draw inspiration for his character from that funny little mustache.

Chloe Moretz. I don't believe I'm familiar with her, but she's got quite a resume for being such a young girl. She's totally adorable and she acted this part really well, especially considering the mature content, so she certainly has potential.

Christopher Mintz-Plasse. Okay, you may not recognize his name, but I KNOW you know him. McLovin', anyone? Let's go down the list of his recent teenage-guy comedies: Superbad (absolutely his breakout role), Role Models, Year One, and I just discovered he was also a voice in How to Train Your Dragon. I thought he'd been in about 60 films since Superbad came out in 2007, but it appears that I've just listed almost his entire resume. Hard to believe considering how absolutely recognizable he is. He is as geekily adorable as always, though believe it or not, he is something of a villain in this movie. And can I just mention how weird it is to see him dressed in clean, expensive clothes? He actually looks normal when you put him in a button-up and tailored jeans. It's nice.

And last but not least, my favorite late-night comedian Craig Ferguson was in this movie! For some reason I've been on a Craig kick lately. I have his memoir checked out from the library (it's quite amusing, I'd highly recommend it), he was in How to Train Your Dragon, which I highly enjoyed, I've been watching clips of his monologues on his website lately, and now he's in Kick-Ass! I just really like Craig Ferguson. First, he's hilarious, and everything he says is even funnier when he says it in his Scottish accent. He also seems to have a great love for our country and isn't afraid to shout about it ("It's a great day in America!"), and I find that to be a very admirable trait in a media personality in this day and age. Plus his accent. lol So when they chose to use Craig Ferguson as their late night persona in this movie, I was like OMG It's freakin' Craig Ferguson again! It just made me really happy.

So now that I've discussed the pleasure I got from seeing each of these actors in the movie, let me turn to the movie itself. I was hesitant to go see it at first because I knew it had a high potential for violence. The reviews I had read specifically pointed to the violence, and after my initial interest in the preview, I began to be afraid about what it would really be like. However, today felt like a movie sort of day, so I settled down to watch a trailer for Kick-Ass and for The Losers, and Kick-Ass won by a long shot. They're both the type of movie that I could really enjoy if the violence was balanced appropriately with comedy and a happy ending. Judging by the humor present in the Kick-Ass trailer, I determined that it would have the most potential. Plus I had forgotten just how amusing it looked until I watched it again, so I decided to buck up and just go see it for myself.

What a great idea! I actually really enjoyed this movie. Is it weird that a movie this violent could fit so well in Neverland? It has the heroic transformation of a regular guy into a kick-ass superhero (pun *giggles*), humorous lines, a daddy-daughter combo, a love story, and above all, a happy ending. Sure there was blood squirting everywhere and an awful lot of dead people, but I found that I was still able to enjoy the movie despite all this.

It opens with this enormously geeky kid and his friends hanging out at a local comic book store. Dave (Kick-Ass) asks why no one has ever tried to become a superhero, and his friends laugh. The path is set. He buys a green and yellow wetsuit and mask and becomes Kick-Ass. After a severe ass kicking for which he was on the receiving end, he heals but doesn't give up. If anything, he's more determined to kick some criminal ass.

After his first successful fight is captured on a cell phone video and goes viral on YouTube, Kick-Ass has become a household name. Enter the villain, Frank D'Amico, the drug lord of New York City. His men keep describing a Batman-like man who is defeating them in their attempt to sell drugs, and Frank suddenly realizes that this "Kick-Ass" might be threatening his business. So he starts looking for Kick-Ass.

The Batman superhero is actually Big Daddy, a former police officer framed and jailed by Frank several years earlier. When he got out of prison, he trained his daughter to fight crime with him, and together they vow to bring a stop to Frank's crime ring. It is a bit unnerving to see an 11yo girl gleefully stabbing 5 men in a swirl of skirts and purple hair, but that's part of what makes this such a teenage-guy joyride. That's the type of thing that tickles their fancy--a little blond girl that can twirl a knife (and a samurai sword and a double-bladed sword and a gun as well) better than they can. Hell, better than almost anyone. If you allow yourself to be swept along on the Little Boy Fantasy Express, it's really quite fun rather than disturbing.

Red Mist, who appears to be a fellow generous superhero in the trailer, turns out to be the son of Frank D'Amico, and he only dons his cape and spiky hair to help his father bring down the other heroes. So now we have all of our heroes (or anti-heroes, as it were). Where does Craig Ferguson come in? Well, he's one of the vehicles used to show Kick-Ass's nationwide popularity, and he delivers a perfectly Craig Ferguson-esque monologue talking about Kick-Ass. The fact that I could see myself watching that very episode in real life was what made it so priceless. I mean, there was Craig grinning cheekily into the camera and making jokes like he always does. "Now I know what you're thinking, but I'm not Kick-Ass!" lol So great.

It's these little touches, the parts that make you feel like something like this really could happen, that makes this movie so enjoyable. We've all known geeks in high school, and comic book geeks are a standard of teenage boy geekdom. So when this bespectacled boy decides to put on a costume and march around to stop crime, we could see how that could happen. Plus he's not really going out of his way to look for trouble--on the other hand, you can clearly see his hesitation when he sees a fight break out in front of him because he knows the very real danger of a geeky teenage boy jumping into a knife fight with gang members. But he does it anyway, and this naive nobility is what makes him so lovable. Sure, we all know he should never survive, but thanks to some friends with guns and better training (think Big Daddy and Hit Girl), he makes it through. And sometimes, he even makes it on his own, proving that it really can be worth it to stick your neck out for someone else.

This movie is interesting because it makes you think, even while overloading your senses with gunshots and blood squirts. You pause with the protagonist, thinking to yourself, would I help, would I stop to help the victim, or would I look the other way and keep going? Of course, being the gigantic pansy that I am, I would 9 times out of 10 run screaming in the other direction. But it is very satisfying to watch someone who is theoretically as helpless as you are, stepping forward to try to make this world a better place, one petty fight at a time. Kick-Ass represents all of us who wish we could do something to help, who wish we had the courage to stand up and fight.

So there's fighting and gunshots and knife throwing and lots of blood squirting all over, eventually leading to a very intense climax. I mean, it really wasn't tooo bad considering how much I hate physical pain. In fact, I endured quite well considering the violent nature of it all. Either I'm getting over that inability to watch people get hurt or I had sufficiently disengaged to not be bothered by it. I mean, I won't gloss over the fact that this is a very violent movie, not for the faint of heart or those sickened by blood or violence (one guy even loses his entire leg to a sword swipe), but it didn't bother me. If violence can be tastefully filmed, this was. I've heard Sin City was similar in its artsiness, but I was always too afraid to watch that movie (in fact, it was mentioned in this movie, ironically enough). It's sort of like 300, where you see the blood and that is a very real part of the action of the movie, but there are enough other things to like about the movie that that's not really what you walk away with.

Here's the best example I can give of how this movie's violence isn't the overarching feature you remember: when the movie went to credits, I found I was still grinning. I laughed out loud several times throughout the movie, did a couple forehead slaps, grinned and shook my head--and even did all that as I was walking out of the theater. Only a movie that really amuses you can keep that feeling when it's over. I got into my car and giggled for no reason whatsoever. I had to turn down my radio on the car ride home to savor the amusing, giggly feeling I had leftover from the movie. Was it unbelievably violent and difficult to watch at times? Yes. Did I have my hands up on my temples to make myself feel better? Yes. Did I walk out of the theater practically skipping because it was so amusing? A resounding Yes.

A note about the hands on my head thing: I find that when I'm concerned that something is going to be violent or scary, I put my hands up by my face. The first time I watched Mel Gibson's The Patriot, I had a headache because I had been squeezing my head so much from the violence onscreen. It's the only way I can make it through any kind of suspense. It's like I have to have all my muscles tensed, and I feel best in that position when I'm scared. I can be holding my husband's hand during a movie and actually remove it to put it up by my face when I'm scared. Perhaps it's a vestige of the fetal position? Who knows. If I think back, I spent a fair amount of this movie with my hands either up by my face or clenched tightly in my lap, but still, most importantly, I only think about that when I actually take the time to reflect on it. The humor and moral of the movie made up for the suspense and violence.

In sum, I would highly recommend Kick-Ass, with a few caveats. You must go in with the mindset that you are about to see a bloodbath, albeit artfully filmed. Watching Hit Girl fight can be like watching Neo in The Matrix, but with blood squirting everywhere. You must also be prepared for teenage boy humor--he references jerking off (complete with kleenexes in the trash) twice in the first 5 minutes, but it's not really a raunchy movie. There are some almost full boob moments, but I was glad they didn't feel the need to expose them entirely. It gave the film some dignity that it could reference boobs without actually having to stoop to showing them onscreen.

If you can go into this movie with this mindset, I think you'll really enjoy it. It's funny, with a heartwarming protagonist that looks good in a wetsuit. If you've liked the recent string of college humor movies that have come out, you'll definitely like this one. On the other hand, I hated Superbad and still really enjoyed this one. I find them to be hit or miss with me, but this one was just fanciful enough to tickle my funny bone. I mean really, let's be honest, you can't go wrong with a geek in a superhero costume that genuinely believes he can make a difference in the world. A colorful cast of supporting characters adds to the charm and believability of the film, and its humor leaves you walking out of the theater with a smile on your face.

Let's be honest, you can't really have rainbows in a movie like this, so we'll go with the equines this time: I give this movie 4 ponies.

Rating: (out of 5 rainbows and ponies) 4 ponies
Conclusion: HAPPY ENDING

-PrincessM