Reviews

There is a considerable amount of controversy regarding the premise and content of this show, and that is not without merit. While I agree with showing Christians as imperfect, striving people, I don't agree with making every single character on this show a stereotype, a cardboard cut-out. Putting the controversy aside, this is just a stupid show. The writing is bad, the acting is marginal, the characters are annoying and one-dimensional, and the conflicting themes and messages just don't make it worth it.

The idea of making Jesus contemporary, and discussing things regularly with Daniel could have been interesting, but rather than making Jesus seem laid-back, interested in Daniel and his family, and, well, Jesus-like in beliefs and motivations, he comes across as bored and uninterested. The family's issues are extremely soap opera, and hardly grab the viewer's interest. We could see any one of their issues on any daytime soap (and probably at better acting with a better script, which is really saying something about this show...). Could the kids and their issues be any more contrived? The teenage daughter is selling pot to fund her ambitions for anime? The adopted son is having unapologetic and irresponsible sex with the racist neighbor's daughter, regardless of their parents' advice or their families' purported morals? The oldest son (still at home?), having buried his twin brother (Cancer victim), bemoaning his woes as a gay Christian while his dad blindly and uneducatedly looks on, and complains about having to date the girl he met at choir instead of her cute brother (who, incidentally, never implied he was interested)? Not to mention the parents and their silly issues, dealing with a slew of other unsavory issues like making public their sex life, the lesbian widow sister, and the adulterous yet narrow-minded father having an affair with the female priest. Come on, it's just absurd. Also, why did they have to cram EVERY single issue into the first episodes? It's almost as if they knew it was going to be cancelled and wanted to get their say in as soon as possible.

Also, they spout off a lot of lies about society and issues, which go unchallenged, and thus teach society (and impressionable people who believe everything they hear about issues like homosexuality and religion) things that aren't necessarily true.

Basically, it's the worst kind of mix between the fluff, faux spirituality and idiotic plots of 7th Heaven and the sex, drama and ridiculous ideas behind The O.C., with the acting and writing from both, no combination of which could possibly equal something worth watching.

For those faint of heart, weak of character, or poor in spirit, be careful with this film. It handles heavy issues, tackles serious drama, and has definite PG-13 material. But it also illustrates compassionately and expertly the atoning power of Christ, the amazing strength that can come from relying on Him in our imperfect, human state, and turning to Him in repentance, feeling His love, regardless of the mistakes we've made.

This was a gritty, realistic look at many of the issues young people (especially missionaries) face today. It doesn't try to hide the evil, but it does keep the Spirit and the Gospel of peace, hope and repentance far more prominent. It doesn't condescend or submit to cheap laughs and religious stereotypes, as many LDS-made films do, but rather, as Dutcher has a magnificent habit of doing, it focuses on what the Gospel is really about. It doesn't pretend that sin isn't sin, it recognizes fully when wrong has been done, and when further wrong is done in an attempt to rectify it. This film indicates the only real solution to any problem, the power of Christ. To those who grimace at the reverent and appropriate use of ordinances and the like in Dutcher's movies, get past your letter-of-the-law cultural mindset and take a look at the Gospel, and listen to the Spirit.

Technically, this film is as admirable and noteworthy as many films made nowadays. Where Dutcher finds such incredible actors is beyond me, as is how he manages to get such powerful and moving performances out of them. It's artistic, it's dramatic, but it's real and feels like a situation that you've seen before. The use of Sam Cardon's music was effective, and the one or two throwbacks to God's Army were enjoyable. Especially noteworthy was how this film didn't downplay any religion, but rather lifted up the importance of believing and relying on Christ.

I laughed, I cried, and then I cried some more. Everyone who finds their way to this review, PLEASE do what you need to do to see this incredible film. It will make you grateful that we have a Savior to turn to when we know we've done the wrong thing. I only wish I could give this film 11 stars. Bravo, Richard. You've done it again.

First off, I'm really surprised at the almost all positive reviews for this film. I mean, it was OKAY, but far from good, and definitely not even in the top three of its kind so far. I really do care about the growing popularity of LDS-made films. While some are ridiculous (The Book of Mormon Movie, The Home Teachers) and some are sublime (God's Army, Brigham City), some, like The Best Two Years, manage to find their place somewhere in the middle. As for me, I had relatively low expectations for The Best Two Years, especially since it almost seemed to be marketed as a cheap rip-off of God's Army, and I was still disappointed.

First of all, technically, this film left a little to be desired. Some of the cinematography and direction was nice (when they actually decided to hold the camera still... I mean, I'm all for the steady cam techniques, but give the audience a rest every once in a while! It can be nauseating, almost to the point of The Blair Witch Project!), but the acting was wooden and the dialogue unbelievably drippy. The characters were non-believable, mostly annoying boors with shallow problems and no resolutions, not to mention a noticeable lack of character arcs. The script was drippy, full of Mormon clichés, inside jokes, stereotypes, and other forms of cultural fluff that don't actually mean anything, delivered by mediocre actors (mostly, I suspect, due to the silly material they were handed in the script). The plot was contrived and, as stated before, almost a direct copy of God's Army, but without the endearing characters and believable camaraderie.

But more importantly absent are meaningful themes. They really tried to make this film actually MEAN something, but the characters' trite and shallow problems were resolved through completely temporal means, such as hard work and doing the work to get statistics and numbers. This is ABSOLUTELY not what missionary work is about. They really tried to make it have some reliance on Christ, but nowhere did they actually realize that the most important thing you can learn on a mission is the realization of your personal relationship with Jesus Christ, how it affects those around you, and how it can last the rest of your life. Ultimately, the cliché "the best two years of my life" (which I hate, by the way) is a misnomer. What you learn on a mission should lead to a lifetime of growing closer to Christ. EVERY year after the mission should be the best year of your life. I mean, really, apply what you learned and spread Christ's love everywhere you go, not just in the mission field! This film seemed to be seriously lacking in this. It seemed to me that the theme was work hard so you can convert people and hand out lots of Book of Mormons (notice I didn't say Books of Mormon... Really, copies of the Book of Mormon would be more appropriate, but The Book of Mormon is the title of the book, so that's what you pluralize. You wouldn't say Prides and Prejudice, would you? Judes the Obscure? The Pictures of Dorian Gray? Sorry, that just really bugged me...). And can I just ask WHY the Mission President even visited their apartment? He was just suddenly THERE, like some kind of warden who magically appeared to give the boys some scriptural "medicine" and then leave, only to call from the car and ask to see one of the boys down on the street... but WHY???

Can you do this in a movie? Just pose a plot question and then ignore it?

Is this what Mormons have really come to call good? Maybe compared to the latest drivel from Halestorm, this was pretty passable. Cultural fluff is better-received than real Gospel topics portrayed in film... Ah well, such is life.

For those who REALLY want to know what a mission or the Gospel is like, I recommend Richard Dutcher's as yet unsurpassed transcendental film work in God's Army and Brigham City.

There's usually a lot of work that goes into making a film: writing a good script, finding talented actors to play appealing characters (and yes, bad guys can be appealing too), setting up a believable and entertaining plot and interweaving some kind of theme. The Home Teachers failed miserably at all of the above.

After the relatively charming Singles Ward, the general public seemed a little disappointed with Halestorm's next endeavor, The R.M. The cultural fluff jokes were overused and made Mormons look like absolute idiots. So, having no expectations for The Home Teachers, I knew deep down it would turn out to be tripe in the extreme. At least in this I was NOT disappointed. It's one of the worst films of the year, maybe even of the decade.

First of all, the two main characters were dreadfully annoying. Neither of them had any real redeeming qualities, and I would hate to know either of them in person. While the actors playing them did well at being obnoxious, I guess, most of the blame in this lies in the hands of the screenwriters. The script was an absolute joke. I must admit the most eye-rolling part was when the life-changing, attitude-altering home teaching visit involved burying a dog (called a "yapper" by Michael Birkeland's character in true Chris Farley fashion). Laugh-out-loud yes, but ridiculous and contrived as well.

The whole experience seems like Tommy Boy for Mormons gone terribly, TERRIBLY wrong. The comparisons and similarities were blatant, undeniable and shameless. A road comedy, involving one fat, sloppy, lazy oaf who talks loud and stupid, and a thin, uptight, self-righteous goody-goody, and a road trip involving a car being totalled and a deer.

The soundtrack was repetitive (any of the cuts from the first two films would have worked as well), the cinematography was mediocre, the acting was like something you'd see in a Stake Roadshow. Yes, I'm LDS, but that doesn't mean I have to support something that highlights the ridiculous Culture side of the church and totally demoralizes the actual Gospel. Some will like it, but unfortunately that's because Mormons are easily picked on and don't realize how stupid it makes us look. *sigh* Hopefully, as I've heard it said, Richard Dutcher will be able to pull us out of this one.

For real LDS cinema (and just good films besides!), check out God's Army, or Dutcher's masterpiece Brigham City, or even the update of Pride & Prejudice. Skip the Home Teachers. It will make you want to slam the door on YOUR home teachers next time they come over, regardless of what message these guys TRIED to stick into the story at the end.

After seeing the trailers for this film, I walked in with a very vivid expectation of what I would see. Miracle truly didn't disappoint in this aspect, but unfortunately that's the only way in which it didn't disappoint. Miracle delivered a truly predictable sports flick that didn't even really make the journey very much fun.

There are many many films in the sports movie genre, leading to played and replayed stories with smarmy, milked endings. This one was no exception. Sometimes they can be pulled off without seeming heavy-handed or trite, but other times, they just turn out schmalzy and boring. This tried story of a has-been-turned-coach having to deal with a team made up of a group of argumentative Hollywood hotties and the ensuing lives changed and unity formed contains exactly every single element the sports movie formula requires. Honestly, I expected Emilio Estevez to arrive at any moment and instruct the players to initiate the Flying V maneuver and win the game.

Aside from the thematic issues, there were technical indiscretions as well. As far as editing goes, you could tell what they were going for, with the constant cuts back to the timer and the extreme closeups, but it just didn't seem to add anticipation, just confusion. Furthermore, the extended overuse of close shots often led to confusion as far as blocking and where characters were in relation to other characters in a scene, lacking some serious establishing shots. Still, there were SOME good acting moments, particularly on the part of Kurt Russell, who pulls off a relatively brilliant Coach Herb Brooks. The kids were all right for the most part (was it just me and my companions, or did a lot of those kids look almost identical?), but their characters still seemed at times overworked.

In the end, it was all right, exactly what I expected, so I can't say I was disappointed. But what I CAN say is it's a good thing America won, or else they wouldn't be worthwhile individuals, or so the sports world would have you believe. "It doesn't matter if you win or lose...." Hm. That theory seems lost on America as of late.

5/10.

Elle Woods's venture into law school led to some really charming, fun, interesting things, but her journey to Capitol Hill really left much to be desired. With such a relatively strong starting point, and such an adorable lead, it's hard to believe Red, White & Blonde felt more like Red, White & Blah.

The writing was pretty much all right, and the casting was okay, it's the subject matter that's just ridiculous. Witherspoon's character wants to storm D.C. so she can invite her dog's biological mother to her wedding??? It's almost insulting to be fed this kind of drivel from Hollywood. Elle then proceeds to campaign for animal rights (the ASPCA will just LOVE this film), and eventually, everything turns out pink and cute, just like it should. What REALLY irked me is that Elle's chihuahua Bruiser comes out of the closet in this film. I am sorry, but animals simply are not sexually confused. They, unlike humans, know how things work in that area. It was just tacky and tasteless, and was obviously intended to appease the sympathetic, pro-homosexual demographic and further their agenda. I know it's sort of a fairy tale type story, how Elle lives and works, but this was just pushing it too far. If anything, Bruiser was conditioned to THINK he's gay because of all the pink skirts et al Woods dresses him in. Sheesh.

In any case, it was worth watching for the delectable Reese Witherspoon as Elle Woods (and Luke Wilson, despite the fact that his character is wooden and boring) and some of her supporting cast, etc. Stick with the first one and you'll be just fine.

2/10

When first I saw the previews for Peter Pan, I thought to myself, This story has been told so many times through so many mediums, how could this one possibly be interesting or avoid being totally predictable? When my younger sister dragged me out of the house on Christmas Day, however, I found myself captivated and engaged from start to finish. From stellar casting and brilliant character and relationship development to stunning visuals, including truly magical cinematography, Peter Pan was a feast for the senses that made me wish I never had to grow up.

The cast was delectable, including the stunning Olivia Williams as the picture perfect Mary Darling, Lynn Redgrave as the prim and proper Aunt Millicent, and Jason Isaacs, deftly pulling off dual performances as George Darling and Captain James Hook himself, as is traditional (and, I might say, adding a unique twist to a truly played but always interesting character). But I daresay, most notable were the performances by young and talented stars Rachel Hurd-Wood as the charming and undeniably endearing Wendy Darling and Jeremy Sumpter as Peter Pan himself, the boy who would never grow up. Their relationship was remarkably believable, and they remained true, I've been told, to the quasi-love story found in the book. It was innocent and charming, and added just that extra touch of appeal to their characters.

There were definitely themes and messages throughout about maintaining your innocence, loving yourself and learning the value of others. Captain Hook and Peter Pan's interaction was truly interesting, leaving a lasting commentary on attitude and lingering feelings of remorse and self-dissatisfaction. It's an uplifting, magical story that definitely has been told and retold, but this version certainly stands up against the next Peter Pan, in a way it could only have been told in 2003.

An excellent holiday family film that will surely stand the test of time and become a classic, beloved of all ages, and will undoubtedly influence a new generation to become acquainted (or reacquainted) with J.M. Barrie's original novel. So was it predictable and played? Yes, but the fun was in the journey.

9/10

I never was terrible interested in this film from the previews, mostly because I wasn't at all familiar with the Graphic Novel, neither am I a major fan of Sean Connery (it bugs when they flash some big star's face on the screen just to get an audience out there, regardless of what the movie is). Having said this (and probably needless to say), I missed this movie in theaters, but caught it at a local rental store on DVD.

I will give this movie some props: It was a really cool idea, having several literary characters coexist in one time (Call me Ishmael... heh). I mean, Dorian Gray, Mina Harker, Tom Sawyer, Rodney Skinner, Dr. Jekyll and Captain Nemo, it just could have been really cool. But unless you like underdeveloped characters and relationships, poor writing and annoying characterizations, some good special effects (and some not so good, like the freakish monstrosity that M's henchman becomes upon taking Hyde's formula), big explosions and no general plot, this is NOT the movie for you! It's extremely hard to develop a story AND characters and relationships in an ensemble cast like this (but it can and HAS been done, see the Lord of the Rings or X-Men), and it just seems like these guys weren't quite sure how to do it, like they missed that day in film school or something, or didn't go at all... This movie was all about character, especially since it had little or not plot, but even the characters weren't that strong (except because of the natural, literary implications that come from the actual sources of Stoker, Twain, Wilde, Stevenson, etc.).

In any case, this is pretty much Mystery Men 2000. I mean, it has all the parallels (Mina-the Bowler, Jekyll-Mr. Furious, Skinner-Invisible Boy, Nemo-the Blue Raja, Quartermain-the Shoveler, and don't let's forget the Sphinx and Casanova Frankenstein all rolled up into one as M/the Phantom), the only difference is LXG just isn't funny. Sadly, this movie will probably spawn a sequel, and unlike many franchises today (the two above as well as Spider-Man, more than likely), it will be even worse than its predecessor.

Just spare yourself unless you're a die-hard Connery fan or you're into pretty faces (and can overlook the wooden acting coming from it) and some all right, but ultimately pointless fighting. Some fun moments, but overall, unmemorable to say the least.

2/10

After I was truly blown away by The Two Towers, I could only dream of what I could expect from The Return of the King. Always a fan a Tolkien's work, I had considered the first two films absolute masterpieces, incredible and unsurpassed (or unsurpassable) cinematic achievements, and was far from disappointed with the end of the trilogy. It's hard to believe that the quest is over, and that the whole trilogy ended up so brilliantly, but there it is. I really wasn't going to post on here, just because there are always so many, mine wouldn't make a difference, but this film moved me so much, I just had to let everyone know.

Let it be known, first and foremost, I'm not a "Ring Nut," nor did I attend the midnight showing in New Zealand in costume (or anywhere else). Still, I did go on opening night, and I was definitely pumped, (and I really believe in the difference between crazy scary LotR fans and cool LotR fans). From Smeagol's first encounter with the Ring to the Cracks of Doom and beyond, this film is as close to perfection as I've ever seen, or that I imagine I'll ever see. I really wish I could describe how this movie made me feel, even days later, but it's beyond words. It's beyond awards, it's beyond Hollywood. The idea that anything else this year (or any other year) could beat this film in any Oscar category is truly laughable. Music, effects, acting, editing, directing, adaptation, screenplay, cinematography, name it.

The only few and little complaints I've heard about this film are unfounded and hardly credible. From the Fellowship to the Return, there is so much character and relationship development and story it's above scrutiny. With one gesture, one expression, nearly every actor on screen evokes an entire pantheon of emotions, letting everyone watching know exactly what they're thinking and feeling, and making a truly believable world. Most notable are Ian McKellan's inspiring Gandalf, Sean Astin's incredible Sam and of course, Elijah Wood's ever-burdened and continually tortured Frodo. The development of Frodo's character from start to finish alone is a paramount achievement. The screenplay is poetic and poignant, something I'm positive Tolkien would more than approve of. The cast and crew truly seem to respect the material they were working with and the expectations they were facing. Also, the ending, though long (although you'd never know it while you're watching until you glance at your watch on the way home, heck, I never wanted it to end!), is perfect. Don't forget there are three movies' worth of resolution to make up for. It could not possibly have ended better. It was a perfect bookend to the prologue at the start of the Fellowship of the Ring. Nobody felt cheated, everyone found out and loved what happened, and Frodo finally found peace.

For me, the Lord of the Rings are incredible films with intense action sequences and stunning visual effects, but they're far more than that. While I know Tolkien didn't intend any blatant symbolism (especially about Sadam Hussein and the War in Iraq or ecology and tree-hugging), I do know that fantasy has inherent allegorical qualities, no matter how hard you try to deny it. Frodo's quest means more to me than I think any other cinematic experience, so while I felt a little silly getting crazy over what is ultimately "just a movie," I realized that I learned and grew from it, so I don't feel dumb after all. There are truly lessons to be learned from the Quest to destroy the One Ring about society, relationships, loyalty, and of course faith and hope. I defy anyone to deny that.

I know there are those who will argue that this is without a doubt the greatest movie (and trilogy) ever made, but there are those who will defend it as well. Moreover, they'll tell you to keep your Godfather, your Citizen Kane, and your Matrix. Sure, they really are great films, it's just that The Lord of the Rings are beyond comparison. They're on a completely different level, another plane. Just watch this movie and I am positive, if you're not narrow-minded (or otherwise retarded) you will truly be uplifted, moved and inspired. The makers of this film did everything just right. I can't imagine a better end to the Ringbearer's quest.

All in all, it was pretty good and I can't wait to see it again... :)

I'm intrigued by the sudden surge of Mormon filmmaking and was truly looking forward to The Book of Mormon on the big screen. Yes, I am LDS, and yes, I do believe the Book of Mormon contains historical and theological facts and events. This being said, I went to this movie with an old friend and two of my roommates, found maybe a little over a dozen people in the theater, and by the end, six of them had walked out. Why didn't we? We were having way too much fun laughing (and at the same time crying) at how they had botched up the greatest book on earth.

First of all, to the people who claim that we who didn't like the movie "don't know what people want to see in a movie" or other such nonsense, I say maybe it's YOU don't know what movies are supposed to be.... When a filmmaker considers the audience so handicapped that they have to spell out the plot or characters (telling instead of showing) and insult us with a contrived and sappy script, it's simply offensive. Some filmmakers are truly able to consider the needs of both the hoity-toity, intellectual, film critic audience as well as the less-studied but just as valid movie watcher (consider The Lord of the Rings, or if you must go the LDS route, Brigham City).

About the movie, it was truly entertaining, but not at all in the way I had hoped. From virtually non-existent character development, poor casting with often wretched acting, and a laughable script, we wondered who would ever sit through countless more volumes of this movie! We felt bad giggling and whispering throughout until we noticed the handful of others in the theater were doing the same (particularly during the shocking of the apostates on the beach or Lehi's dream). We even tried to figure out why it was rated PG-13. When my friend leaned over to me, she said, "I think it was for bad acting." I replied, "No, I think it's rated PG-13 for murmuring and pride. Honestly, Laman and Lemuel's cycle of respect for and violence against Nephi truly is repetitive, and shows their ignorance and lack of the Spirit, but it can still be displayed pretty well if the characters are believable and they sound like they mean what they say.

Nephi.... Nephi, Nephi, Nephi... As much as I love the man, I couldn't help but side with L&L in this version. I wouldn't believe in Nephi either! First of all, he's twice as big as anyone else on screen (probably because he's constantly flexing, making his neck look ever thicker and his head look ever smaller), so he should have been able to knock any one of his attackers down with a single swipe of his hand. Secondly, his blank and often vague expressions indicated density and blandness rather than a somber mind and spiritual enlightenment. Thirdly (and mostly not the actor's fault), they tried so hard sometimes to get the ancient, scriptural vernacular right for most of the time, and then Nephi says things like "Oh, yeah..." and "okay." ??? Anachronisms are fine, don't get me wrong, just pick a time period and don't move out of it! It's distracting and absurd. Also, after the commandment to retrieve the daughters of Ishmael... "This is the best vision you've ever had! I WILL go and do..." The use of repeated scripture in this case, while it was supposed to be clever and charming, was nothing more than tasteless and tacky. He had a couple of good moments, but if I saw him eating dirt, foaming at the mouth one more time, I was going to walk out... And the splattering of Laban's blood on his face was such a lovely touch.

As for the rest of the cast, Laman's greatest moment was either when he pseudo-apologized to Nephi for, well, attempted MURDER, or his "I'm suddenly a cannibal and a mindless savage" dance around the campfire. Lehi was mostly bumbling, disappointingly ("Don't you underSTAND! The CITY is going to be DESTROYED!"--repeat until you are ushered off screen). Sariah was constantly under such strain she was a nervous wreck throughout. Sam seemed like a love/peace hippie ("Will you stop arguing?? That's all we ever do anymore!"). Nephi's wifey had too much face paint (since when are Nephites brown anyway??) and was given lines dripping with unbelievable sap. All the other wives seemed lifeless, but also like girls I've seen at stake dances (I especially thought the part when they were wearing hot pink tube tops and halters interesting, and Laman didn't even seem to mind that his wife was seducing Nephi...).

All in all, considering effects (understandable on such a low budget), sets and locations (some of which were lovely, but seemingly mismatched), acting and script (inexcusable... someone was paid no matter what it ended up like, the least they could do was get it right), some good music and some moments of good acting, this movie was like an over two hour joke. Would I take my non-LDS friends to see it? Not in this lifetime or the next. I would give them a copy of the book, and then point them in the direction of Brigham City for a movie that truly embodies what the LDS Gospel is about.

Sigh... even as a movie (besides the fact that it's doctrine), this story has such potential. Sometimes there's a time and a means something's supposed to be created in. For example, if the Lord of the Rings were made even five years earlier and by anyone else than the director/cast/etc they have, it would not nearly have been as good. Such it is for The Book of Mormon. From its opening of "Jerusalem About - 600 B.C." to its close of "THE END... OF THE BEGINNING" (I thought it should have said, "The end.... or is it?"), it was both an incredibly funny and painfully sad experience.

I say the same thing to those here as I said to those walking out of the theater: "Just read the book."

1.7/10

Thomas Hardy is an indisputable literary genius. Why I never thought to read the Mayor of Casterbridge is beyond me. I imagine I always found his lead heroines more intriguing than his title heroes (Tess, Eustacia from the Return of the Native, Bathsheba from Far From the Madding Crowd, etc.). I saw this A&E production tonight and found that, despite the ads that ran too often and too many, this story is not only captivating but heartbreaking, as we've come to expect from Hardy.

This film involves a complex plot only Hardy could provide. The title character is a well-respected, wealthy mayor of a prosperous town and the owner of a granary. When Michael Henchard's past mistakes and associations return to haunt him years later, he, his long-lost wife and daughter, his one-time lover and a young man who finds himself involved with all become intertwined in a tragic, moving, but somehow uplifting story.

Stellar acting make this film work, even if it does seem rushed at times, and the story sometimes seems crammed in its time frame. While Ciaran Hinds in the lead sort of bugs and scares me, in the end, my mom and I both found ourselved in tears at his plight and the ending. Thomas Hardy's stories often seem hopeless and Godless, but nevertheless lead to careful examination of human nature and society.

A thought-provoking, tragic (traditional of Hardyist stories), emotionally intense ride, The Mayor of Casterbridge is one of those rare gems of television.

8/10.

Being a big fan of the first two Spy Kids movies, I was a little worried to see what would happen when they shifted the focus from story and character to effects and spectacle. Sure, the first two movies relied heavily on special effects and CGI, but Spy Kids 3-D REALLY takes the cake for 3D (in both senses of the term) effects. Much to my surprise, I was still absorbed in the story and the new characters, and found myself genuinely concerned and curious as to the outcome. I really love the consistency of characters (mostly evident in the Cortez family) and their relationships. The audience feels like they really know them.

Sylvester Stallone (times three) and Salma Hayek add a new interesting dynamic, as do the four new kids in the video game (The strength, the brains, the cool and the intuition... heh). Definitely cool was the return of nearly every central and secondary character from the first two films (Gregorio and Ingrid Cortez, her parents, Floop and Minion, Romero, Gary and Gerti Giggles, Uncle Machete, "Uncle" Felix, Dinky Winks, etc.). I would have loved a serious establishing shot of this whole cast of characters in the climax of the film.

The 3D was fun, not really that distracting, and while this is probably the weakest of the three films storywise, it's obvious why--it's not as much about the story, it's about the spectacle. Take it for what it is and you'll enjoy it immensely. Furthering the uplifting pro-family message, Spy Kids 3-D is a charming, fresh, entertaining film.

Not my favorite SK film, but definitely an interesting twist and turn to the series. It'll be interesting to see just how far these films (and kids) will go. Rodriguez really has done something incredible in the creation of these films (writing, directing, composing music, editing, all out of his own studio, I understand...) and should be supported for the message he's putting out there, considering the usual crap that Hollywood dishes out and calls morals.

9/10.

I was a fan of Spy Kids from the start, but missed the sequel in the theaters. After its DVD release, I was pleasantly surprised to see the kids back in action. How Rodriguez manages to put these kids in a grown-up world and employing mature conversation and make it BELIEVABLE is comic genius. Picking up where the first film left off (sort of), Carmen and Juni are definitely growing up and the actors that play them are definitely getting better with more experience.

Alan Cumming, George Clooney, Tony Shalhoub, Carla Gugino, Antonio Banderas and Cheech Marin's appearances make the movie seem a true continuation (don't you hate when they make a sequel that just seems disjointed and out of place?), and Emily Osment, Holland Taylor, Steve Buscemi, Ricardo Montalban, Taylor Momsen, Matt O'Leary, and Bill Paxton's characters add a fresh and new feel to it as well, making it a relatively all-star ensemble cast.

Sort of a different, more mature and fleshed out feeling effuses from Spy Kids 2, and the story manages to engage and entertain, as well as the continual use of incredible gadgets and captivating CGI (even the oft-criticized creatures that inhabit the Island of Dreams). The comedy and writing improves each time, as does the acting and array of talent. Carmen and Juni's relationship grows ever more interesting and we always LOVE to see them work it out in the end (love the telepathy). The unusual (for Hollywood) and incredibly uplifting message of the importance of family again shines through in Rodriguez's continued fairy tale/action saga series that will undoubtedly stand the test of time as a fun cinematic gem for all ages.

9-10.

We first saw this movie in the theater as a WHOLE family (probably about 13 at the time) for my then 13-year-old sister's birthday. We were ALL pleasantly surprised by what could easily have been a REALLY stupid movie, but what ended up being a truly entertaining, family-friendly film. A fun story, extremely interesting and entertaining characters and an uplifting message all add up to a successful film in Spy Kids.

The family is the fundamental unit of society and such is made particularly evident in this film. When Carmen and Juni are forced into the spy world to save their parents, Gregorio and Ingrid Cortez (played by the almost comical Antonio Banderas and the stunning Carla Gugino), they strengthen their relationship not only with them but, more interestingly, with each other. The appeal of Alexa Vega and Daryl Sabara's characters is that they're so realistic--they act (and fight) like real sister and brother. In the end, though, it's their differences and their ability to see past them that leads them to victory.

Cameos by George Clooney, Cheech Marin and Teri Hatcher, as well as Tony Shalhoub as Minion and Alan Cumming as Floop add an definite element of the bizarre and the eccentric, but undeniable fun to the film, not to mention selected music by Danny Elfman. Sure, the kids aren't seasoned actors, and sure, the story isn't the MOST complicated plot in recent film history, but the message was enough to make it a keeper for us. Robert Rodriguez has really done something amazing (writing, directing, composing, etc.), and has created a film that will stand as a sadly underappreciated gem.

A great start to what is undeniably a memorable series of films.

9/10.

I decided to sit down and actually watch this movie and its predecessor to find out for myself how they fared. While the first one was a bit of a disappointment to me, I had high hopes that The Jewel of the Nile would turn out to be any better. Unfortunately, I found it drawn out, disjointed and I pined more than once for it to end.

Kathleen Turner as Joan Wilder, the dissatisfied romance novelist with recently acquired writer's block, takes what might have been an interesting turn for some REAL development of her character, but again, she turned out to be inconsistent and sometimes not believable. Michael Douglas as Jack T. Colton was more annoying (if possible) this time around, and I truly wonder if it hadn't been billed as "A Michael Douglas Production" if we would have starred at all. Danny DeVito as Ralph was believably underhanded and slimy, but overbearingly obnoxious, throwing around racial slurs that would have landed him on the Hollywood blacklist today (it didn't really bother me, but in this politically correct world, it's hard to get away with anything...).

So take a disjointed and bad script, couple it with several instances of poor acting and absurd uses of miscommunication, combine it with wretched 80s elevator music (not as bad as in Romancing the Stone), add a few moments of interesting character and some "fun" action scenes and you get The Jewel of the Nile.

7/10.

Having never seen this film or its sequel, I decided to take a couple of evenings to sit down and watch the movies I've heard so many great things about. As I finished, I wondered why I had heard so many great things...

Romancing the Stone had a clever enough story, some noteworthy acting (particularly by Kathleen Turner) and some fun action scenes, but it left me seriously unsatisfied. Maybe I've come to expect more from movies, especially since there are so many well made movies lately, but I really didn't care much for Michael Douglas or even Danny DeVito in RtS. It makes me wonder if Douglas hadn't been behind the scenes producing the film if he would have starred in it at all. Turner's character had some interesting potential for development, but it seemed reduced to a change in costume to change her character, leaving it seemingly inconsistent and a bit unbelievable.

All in all, take some disjointed scenes, a poorly written and/or poorly handled script, some inconsistent characters and horrendous 80s elevator music where there should be epic, memorable themes, throw in a couple of redeeming points and some good acting moments and you get Romancing the Stone. I didn't hate it, but by NO means did I love it.

6/10.

I saw this film over the 4th of July weekend, looking forward to it, having not seen a really great chick flick in quite a while. I took my mom and my younger sisters and we found Alex & Emma to be charming. This film never set out to be anything life-changing or incredible, but succeeded (to the open-minded) in delivering a light-hearted romantic comedy.

Luke Wilson, while a bit understated as a character, seemed to somehow show some quiet charm and charisma as Alex/Adam. While slightly unbelievable as a GREAT author, he comes across very well as a romance novel author. Kate Hudson continues to shine in whatever she's handed (even How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days or the abysmal The Four Feathers). They could have played up her several characters a little more, but for the sake of time and plot movement, they continued on. Sophie Marceau indeed was beautiful, and delivered a somewhat non-likable character (as was intended).

My only gripe: The prolonged sex scene was out of place and gratuitous. This movie could easily have been rated PG. Scarce profanity if any, and a pretty sweet love story (well, a couple of sweet love stories, actually). Spare us the ridiculously uncalled for and even cartoony sex scenes, Hollywood! What ever happened to the subtlety of implication? Oh well.

All in all, a good way to spend an evening. See it for Kate Hudson, if for nothing else.

8/10

Far better than Disney's latest live-action fare, Holes turned out to be an original, fresh, appealing story about a change of heart, a legend/fairy tale, and destiny. Brilliantly adapted to the screen by the writer of the book himself, Holes was even better after a second viewing. Beautifully crafted storytelling makes this mystery captivating from start to finish, giving hints and clues along the way, but only revealing the entire story at the end.

Weaver, Voight and Nelson were cast perfectly as The Warden, Mr. Sir and Dr. Pendanski, and while Shia LeBeouf didn't seem the obvious choice for Stanley Yelnats IV, he managed to make him someone appealing and interesting, someone we could really relate to, with only a TOUCH of distracting Louis Stevens to him. Also particularly noteworthy is Khleo Thomas for his charming and touching portrayal of the misunderstood Zero.

My only complaint (and it's even geared more toward this generation than this movie): Why have the words "Man" and "Dude" replaced people's names? (I'm sure some of the more hardened criminal types at Camp Green Lake would be more prone to use street slang, but Stanley's a pretty well-brought up kid). It just bugs me to see 12- to 15-year-olds seeming so apathetic about familiarity and personal interaction. Nothing serious, just a thought I had as I was comparing the book to the film when I first saw it.

In the end, I found this movie to be an uplifting story with undeniable implications about destiny and fate. Everything happens for a reason, there are no accidents (a nod to M. Night Shyamalan's Signs as well). I had feared this may be another Newsies for this generation: A movie seemingly aimed at pre-teen girls because of its high frequency of teenage boy stars. On the contrary, while this film might be seen as a teenybopper's dream, it has a lot more substance that I had originally thought it would.

9/10.

My first thought at the preview of this film was that it featured the voices of two of my favorite actresses: Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michelle Pfeiffer. When I saw it on opening day, I was far from disappointed. Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas turned out to my pick for the best movie of the Summer (so far) and maybe even the year. I have to concede that this is Dreamworks's next best animated endeavor, second only to their masterpiece, the almost perfect The Prince of Egypt.

You can do a lot of really cool things these days with animation, and with a legend like Sinbad, you can do even more. The legendary hero has to face a moral and ethical dilemma or two in this visually stunning film. The relationships are remarkably well-developed and the characters are extremely believable. Pfeiffer as Eris, the serpentine Goddess of discord is sultry and threateningly subtle. Zeta-Jones as the torn love interest is a feisty advocate for girl-power, but still manages to be feminine, even a damsel in distress at times. Joseph Fiennes, although not given much material, is charming as the good-natured and trusting Proteus, Prince and heir to the throne of Syracuse. Finally, Brad Pitt pulls off a dashing Sinbad, giving life to the role as I imagine only he could. The supporting cast, although they put me off a bit at first, turned out some remarkable comic relief. My only comment about that: Why is dog slobber funny? Spike almost got on my nerves, but at the exact right moment, they ended the slobber jokes and got on with character development and storytelling.

All in all, a spectacular feast for the senses, a romantic, swashbuckling adventure that will enchant all who get a chance to see it.

9.5/10

I am often intrigued by Mormon cinema. I try to stay caught up on the latest films of this newish genre and often find myself pleasantly surprised. Richard Dutcher's incredible, so far unsurpassed work (God's Army and Brigham City) and even Kurt Hale's comedic parodies (The Singles Ward and The R.M.) have been among the most noteworthy. Handcart, quite on the contrary, was rather unpleasant. I admire the makers of the film for what I'm sure they thought was a valiant and noble work, but as far as a story about the Mormon pioneers, this film missed the entire point.

Besides poor acting (overlookable, as many of them were rookies), hardly believable "British" accents, and blatant errors as far as setting (still overlookable, but mountains in Iowa City??), I could not get past the script and inconsistency of character. Abigail and Sam switched personalities so much, neither of their characters were very believable at all, and their relationship development left much to be desired.

This film exhibited a conversion to the LDS faith for a reason that, while seemingly appropriate, falls short of honorable. Conversion to any faith should require some kind of change of heart, some kind of desire to know and feel some truth in this world, to know who we are and where we came from. Sam Hunter, in the film, joined to be with Abigail, and while it was apparent that he had been converted to the Church, not even by the end did I feel he had been converted to the Gospel in any way (I mean, did he ever even read the Book of Mormon?).

While it was interesting to see a new take on the Mormon pioneer story, I was disappointed with how they decided to represent them. With films like this, you just have to ask what they were trying to say. I still find I don't really know their message. If you want to see a more accurate and entertaining film depicting the trek to Zion, find a copy of Legacy. Better yet, to get a real feeling of what the Gospel is about, look up any of Dutcher's work, but particularly Brigham City.

1.7/5 (for some good music, moments of good communication, and questionably good intentions).

I knew going in that this film was going to be formulaic and thoroughly predictable, which is why I never bothered seeing it in the theater. Only after a hearty recommendation from a close friend did I decide to see it, an issue I will surely address with her later... I hate very few movies, but this one came pretty darn close.

First of all, I found the acting atrocious, particularly in, well, the LEAD, Nick Cannon as Devon Mills, which made the whole film almost unbearable from the START. I hated him and never cared if he learned anything (which it seemed he didn't). I found myself often rooting for the opposing band, Morris Brown, and I thought the most admirable student throughout was the oh-so-nasty-but-eventually-nice-guy section leader Sean. Frankly, I found the obvious and bland character of the token white guy offensive and he hardly stood out as anything but another brother. The character of Laila, however, was intriguing and offered one of the only memorable acting jobs throughout. Orlando Jones as Mr. Holland, I mean Dr. Lee was passable, but hardly memorable.

Directorially, it was obvious they were spicing up otherwise OKAY arrangements with an interesting shot, but if I had to sit through one more musical/change of heart/"Why Can't We Be Friends" montage, I was seriously going to end it all right then and there. As for the ending, gee, I really wondered what was going to happen at the end. Sure, they threw me for a loop, having a TIE, but that only prolonged the misery. I whole-heartedly wished the lead would drop his stick or get arrested or beat or SOMETHING to stir things up a little. And another thing: Every time the Color Guard (of sorts) came on, I swore someone had spliced clips from Bring It On into my copy.

I love my memories of the good old days in the band, but I did NOT love this movie. I'm really sorry I stayed up so late watching this. I just kept hoping something interesting would happen. All in all, I'm glad I work at an establishment that allows me to rent DVDs for free so that I don't have to live with the fact that I paid four dollars or more to see this movie, which I consider to be one of the worst I've seen all year.

1.9/10 for some interesting musical arrangements and amusing, albeit sparse field formations.

It's very interesting to read the reviews for this film and its comparison to its 1940s predecessor. First of all, all the complaints I ever heard about the first Fantasia were that it was too long and dragged at times. I was sure the public would be thrilled with the new, shorter length of Fantasia 2000. I myself loved the first one as a kid and was not disappointed with Fantasia 2000 in the least.

I thought its shortness in length was passable, as it did the job of presenting new shorts and new, GREAT music. The celebrity introductions to each segment were cheesy at times, but hardly took away from the stunning animation, unbelievable character appeal (considering we knew many of them for mere minutes) and brilliant timing.

All in all, Fantasia 2000 is inCREDible, easily watchable and re-watchable. Even if only for The Pines of Rome (whales), The Firebird Suite (volcano) and Rhapsody in Blue (New York), this is a fantastic film. I've heard this described as "arguably Disney's greatest film," and while I don't think it's #1, it's definitely spectacular.

Even though no season compares with Survivor IV: Marquesas, the Amazon comes close. Likable characters, interesting alliances and twists and unpredictable outcomes equal a great season. After the dreadful disappointment that Survivor V: Thailand was and remains, it's refreshing to see something watchable.

My only gripe: Things turn a lot more icky when you plot girls against boys. In every season there's usually a token skanky girl who walks around in a bikini top with a fake chest, but this season there seem to be two (or even three), and they seem to capitalize on that. On top of this, a couple of the guys are particularly arrogant and chauvinistic. Other than that, this season is intriguing so far. I can't wait for Rob to get his comeuppance and get the BOOT (fingers crossed). I predict Christy to win!

Try as I might, I can hardly imagine that the appeal for Shipmates is that it's a "great dating show." Perhaps host Chris Hardwick keeps SOME coming back, but why do people REALLY watch this show? Two words: Sex and violence. Each date ends in either one of these two ways. They either end up in the bedroom (sometimes before the end...) or ready to kill each other. I guess people who don't get enough S & V on other trashy shows like Blind Date and ElimiDate watch this show to get even more.

What is this world coming to when TV resorts to physical intimacy or aggression between perfect strangers, relying on these degrading elements to get people to watch. The really sad part was that it works. Oh the humanity... It's like people aren't people anymore, they're objects whose primary use is to entertain, no matter by what sexual or violent means. Decency is definitely a thing of the past.

While Shipmates has one or two redeeming episodes, they somehow manage to get the most arrogant, immoral, superficial, disgusting examples of humanity possible on display. You'd do much better to watch Survivor for intelligent, interesting and moral (comparatively) entertainment.

Never has a season of Survivor been as good as Marquesas. Watching the first three seasons, viewers were just WAITING for a good season. Watching the most recent two, viewers are BEGGING for another Survivor IV. I rooted for Neleh all along, and she really did deserve it more than Vecepia (who did even less than Neleh all the way). I couldn't even get into the first three seasons (until the end of Africa) and Thailand was a terrible disappointment after Marquesas, as I didn't care about any of the candidates (with the exception of one or two who were unjustly booted) and in the end, the liar/backstabber won it all (and the second place winner was hardly a better choice). The Amazon is turning out rather interesting though....

All in all, Survivor IV is the standard that all other seasons must be rated against. Kathy bugged at first, but she grew on us. Neleh and Paschal had an alliance that defines what a true alliance should be. Justice was done when ridiculous candidates Rob, Sarah and John were eliminated and the closeness of Neleh, Paschal, Gina and Kathy was hearbreaking to split. Drama, action, intensity, all elements necessary for a GOOD season of Survivor.