I wanted to really like this movie, particularly since my mom friend did. But while there are a few laugh out loud moments, the film is quite predictable and a little more raunchy than I expected for a romantic comedy. It earns the R rating. So if you're like me and don't mind taking your kids to some PG-13 rom-coms, know this one is R for many reasons. My grade is a D+/C-...I tend to lean toward C- because you get to see a lot of Chris Evans and, well, he's easy on the eyes. But if I'm being honest, it's a D+.
In essence this is a story of a working single woman, Aly, (Anna Faris) who learns via a magazine article that women who have had more than 20 sexual partners are unlikely to get married. So she starts writing down her trysts and finds she has had 19 "relationships." She tells herself the article is wrong, so she plays a game with her sister (who is getting married) and their friends to see how she compares. If you've seen the trailer, you know what happens. She promises not to sleep around anymore because she only has one spot left to find the right guy. She drinks too much and then...
So Ally decides to go back and check out past loves after bumping into one who looks much better than the last time. She connects with her attractive neighbor (Chris Evans), who happens to be good at tracking down people. There are some funny moments as she tries to find her true love, but you see them all in the trailer. Then she realizes a love connection with her neighbor (as expected). But then there's conflict and she happens to find the now wealthy, good-looking philanthropist who was once her prom date. They seem to have a good time, but (predictable) she longs for the much hotter neighbor. You can guess how it turns out.
It's not terrible, but there are many cliches and none of it was a surprise. My feeling is you can wait for the DVD unless you like seeing A LOT of Chris Evans looking mighty fit. If it's a date night movie, he'll be OK with this rom-com because you see a lot of Anna Faris, also looking fit.
Things you should know, particularly if a tween or young teen tags along. My personal feeling is this is a 15+ movie, depending on how open you are about talking about sex. Then again, your teen will not want to be seated next to you watching this. Nor will you.
-Lots of sex talk. Parts are mentioned...things going into, um, you know. And there is simulated sex. You don't see anything, but you know.
-There's nudity. You see Ally coming out of the shower (it's quick) but some outfits leave little to the imagination. Only a well placed towel covers Chris Evan's jewels and you get to see the back side of Ally's boss. Well, you also see him bend and get a blurry view of man parts.
-Lots of language. The F-word is quite common. Little kids even say it.
-Lots of drinking. There's the drunk toast and the drunk dancing on the bar, etc.
Cheers!
Friday, September 30, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
"Moneyball" worth seeing
I hadn't expected much out of "Moneyball" except to see Brad Pitt. Would a movie about the business of baseball keep me engaged? My first thought was no. I was wrong.
"Moneyball," based on the same-titled book by Michael Lewis, delivers a story of a guy with a passion for baseball and a desire for his team to win. The problem is money to compete for the big players. Then he meets a recent college grad with a similar passion for the game who happens to think player pay is screwed up. Hmm, who doesn't? Light bulb moment follows. There's a math equation, talk about on-base percentages, ground outs, yada, yada. You'd think this would put non-fans to sleep. It didn't. I laughed and I found myself cheering for this guy (Billy Beane played by Pitt) whom I would never had known existed if it weren't for this movie.
While the movie does get into the business side of baseball, the story is largely about this guy, Beane (general manager of the Oakland A's), and his drive to see an idea to fix his baseball money problem work. He engages you with his passion to prove a formula for picking good players at a discount would work better than traditional scouting methods. Beane, himself, was a hot young recruit with plenty of potential, but somehow when the game was on he fizzled.
Jonah Hill, who plays the math formula guy Peter Brand, is really good in this, too. Pitt and Hill make a nice odd couple.
It's not a perfect movie, it does drag at times, but it was quite entertaining. I can see this as a date night pick where it's a win for him, but really it's not a loss for you. Overall, I give the movie a B.
If you're thinking of bringing your kids: It's rated PG-13 for strong language. There are also some reference to naughty baseball player behavior, girlfriend appearance and drinking. Oh, and there is a lot of spitting in a cup. If those things don't bother you, just know that boredom could be an issue. There isn't tons of baseball action. If you do bring your kids, it is an inspiring movie based on a true story. That's worth discussing.
Cheers.
"Moneyball," based on the same-titled book by Michael Lewis, delivers a story of a guy with a passion for baseball and a desire for his team to win. The problem is money to compete for the big players. Then he meets a recent college grad with a similar passion for the game who happens to think player pay is screwed up. Hmm, who doesn't? Light bulb moment follows. There's a math equation, talk about on-base percentages, ground outs, yada, yada. You'd think this would put non-fans to sleep. It didn't. I laughed and I found myself cheering for this guy (Billy Beane played by Pitt) whom I would never had known existed if it weren't for this movie.
While the movie does get into the business side of baseball, the story is largely about this guy, Beane (general manager of the Oakland A's), and his drive to see an idea to fix his baseball money problem work. He engages you with his passion to prove a formula for picking good players at a discount would work better than traditional scouting methods. Beane, himself, was a hot young recruit with plenty of potential, but somehow when the game was on he fizzled.
Jonah Hill, who plays the math formula guy Peter Brand, is really good in this, too. Pitt and Hill make a nice odd couple.
It's not a perfect movie, it does drag at times, but it was quite entertaining. I can see this as a date night pick where it's a win for him, but really it's not a loss for you. Overall, I give the movie a B.
If you're thinking of bringing your kids: It's rated PG-13 for strong language. There are also some reference to naughty baseball player behavior, girlfriend appearance and drinking. Oh, and there is a lot of spitting in a cup. If those things don't bother you, just know that boredom could be an issue. There isn't tons of baseball action. If you do bring your kids, it is an inspiring movie based on a true story. That's worth discussing.
Cheers.
Friday, September 16, 2011
"Straw Dogs" not for the faint
I like a good thriller. The build up to the big showdown gets my heart racing. So I was curious to check out "Straw Dogs." I hadn't seen the 1971 original, starring Dustin Hoffman and Susan George, before seeing the new version. Thanks to YouTube, I found the original and watched. Talk about pushing boundaries 40 years ago!
It's fascinating how the remake closely follows the original, except instead of English thugs, you have self-proclaimed rednecks. However, the original has more subtext in my opinion (Hoffman's character seems unable to take a stand on the war so he goes to England for some peace to focus on work). The remake obviously wins in production value and eye candy. The original cast has nothing on Alexander Skarsgard and James Marsden. After seeing both, I did wonder if this movie really needed to be remade.
The remake follows Amy and David Sumner (Kate Bosworth and James Marsden) returning to Amy's stomping ground after her father's death. She's now an actress and he's a screen writer. Amy bumps into her old flame, Charlie (Skarsgard), whom David hires to fix up a damaged roof. In no time, Charlie gets territorial. Mild mannered David does little to stand his ground as a man, instead just pointing out how he's annoyed with the guys just walking into the house to grab a beer. When his wife complains of them leering at her, he tells her to wear a bra (just as in the 1971 original). He's a passive guy seemingly afraid of confrontation until pushed into joining the guys on a hunting trip. This is when Charlie decides to forcefully reclaim what's his. David remains naive and "weak," until forced to defend his home and become a "real" man. At least Amy's character seemed to be a bit stronger in the remake. How all this drama/violence affects their marriage isn't explored.
A secondary storyline where the former high school coach's daughter takes a fancy to a mentally challenged man, leads to a massive showdown in the Sumner home. But that part of the story isn't well developed either. All we know is the townspeople don't like this guy and the coach's daughter keeps seeking him out, ending in an "Of Mice and Men" moment. The story is a bit convoluted and exaggerated with stereotypes. If you aren't supporting the football team and diligently attend church, well you're just pointing out how you don't fit in or think better of yourself.
I did joke with my husband about not messing with rednecks, which lead to a discussion about violence in all cultures. Lucky me. But I digress...
The movie is violent, and earns its R rating. Skarsgard does play his role as a hunky Southern boy/carpenter convincingly. Marsden is fine as a wimpy-turned-violent guy. And so long as you aren't dissecting differences between the original and remake, you should be kept on the edge of your seat. Just don't think too hard if you go. I don't see this becoming part of my DVD collection, but I found it to be slightly better than average. I'd say it's a C+.
You should know there is a sexual attack which will be uncomfortable to watch and some gruesome deaths. If you're not familiar with the original, you'll see something fairly early in the movie that you know will show up later. By the way, this is not at all kid friendly. Leave them at home, please.
It's fascinating how the remake closely follows the original, except instead of English thugs, you have self-proclaimed rednecks. However, the original has more subtext in my opinion (Hoffman's character seems unable to take a stand on the war so he goes to England for some peace to focus on work). The remake obviously wins in production value and eye candy. The original cast has nothing on Alexander Skarsgard and James Marsden. After seeing both, I did wonder if this movie really needed to be remade.
The remake follows Amy and David Sumner (Kate Bosworth and James Marsden) returning to Amy's stomping ground after her father's death. She's now an actress and he's a screen writer. Amy bumps into her old flame, Charlie (Skarsgard), whom David hires to fix up a damaged roof. In no time, Charlie gets territorial. Mild mannered David does little to stand his ground as a man, instead just pointing out how he's annoyed with the guys just walking into the house to grab a beer. When his wife complains of them leering at her, he tells her to wear a bra (just as in the 1971 original). He's a passive guy seemingly afraid of confrontation until pushed into joining the guys on a hunting trip. This is when Charlie decides to forcefully reclaim what's his. David remains naive and "weak," until forced to defend his home and become a "real" man. At least Amy's character seemed to be a bit stronger in the remake. How all this drama/violence affects their marriage isn't explored.
A secondary storyline where the former high school coach's daughter takes a fancy to a mentally challenged man, leads to a massive showdown in the Sumner home. But that part of the story isn't well developed either. All we know is the townspeople don't like this guy and the coach's daughter keeps seeking him out, ending in an "Of Mice and Men" moment. The story is a bit convoluted and exaggerated with stereotypes. If you aren't supporting the football team and diligently attend church, well you're just pointing out how you don't fit in or think better of yourself.
I did joke with my husband about not messing with rednecks, which lead to a discussion about violence in all cultures. Lucky me. But I digress...
The movie is violent, and earns its R rating. Skarsgard does play his role as a hunky Southern boy/carpenter convincingly. Marsden is fine as a wimpy-turned-violent guy. And so long as you aren't dissecting differences between the original and remake, you should be kept on the edge of your seat. Just don't think too hard if you go. I don't see this becoming part of my DVD collection, but I found it to be slightly better than average. I'd say it's a C+.
You should know there is a sexual attack which will be uncomfortable to watch and some gruesome deaths. If you're not familiar with the original, you'll see something fairly early in the movie that you know will show up later. By the way, this is not at all kid friendly. Leave them at home, please.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
"Contagion" makes me want to wash my hands A LOT!
I hadn't heard too much about "Contagion" except for the all-star cast, notably the reuniting of three key actors (Matt Damon, Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow) cast in "The Talented Mr. Ripley." Part of me thought to avoid the movie, thinking it will sensationalize and gross me out. And part of me was curious. I'm glad I saw it. Don't think I'll buy it on DVD, though. See trailer:
Basically the film is about the transmission of a super virus that quickly kills. You get a little bits of the story as doctors and scientists try to figure out what's happening and how the Centers for Disease Control tries to keep the population from panicking. You also get a dose of blogger spin, profiteering, kidnapping, blackmail, looting, insider protectionism, etc. The movie touches on the reaction to the swine flu pandemic two years ago, too. You also see a lot of germs getting passed around. People coughing, touching things, then other people touching those things. Makes you want to reach for hand sanitizer. A lot is going on, but the extreme craziness/hysteria found in blockbusters was missing. It felt realistic in many ways.
The film fascinated me, even though I felt it was a bit choppy. Side note: I didn't feel this way about another one of Steven Soderbergh's movies, "Traffic," which similarly tells the story from many points of view. That one is one of my favorites; I even bought it for my dad as a gift. The choppiness and multitude story lines made "Contagion" feel longer than 105 minutes to me. Personally I felt the story arc of the World Health Organization's doc (Marion Cotillard) didn't need to go beyond identifying the index patient. However, I assume this had to make the movie cut to get into the extremes a population goes through to get their hands on a vaccine.
I was nicely surprised with the movie's "balance" for Hollywood. Seriously. My guest leaned in and said he couldn't believe the government wasn't overtly the bad guy, as often is the case. The film has many shades of gray as characters worked out ethics and figuring out with this crazy new disease, but none of the stories were especially amazing. Some of it was clearly predictable. The only clear heroes, it seems, are the scientists, who defy protocol to figure out the virus, which then leads to the vaccine. As a former reporter, I enjoyed seeing the behind the scenes discussions focused on the spin.
Overall, I'd give the film a B-. The acting was solid and idea was good and timely. It influenced me to not touch my face until I washed my hands. I may start carrying hand sanitizer in my purse all the time and not just at touristy places.
As for the kids, it is a PG-13 film. Only you know what they can handle. It's scary in the sense that it is realistic. There are some disturbing images and language (don't recall anything too bad). Some things you should know:
Several characters die after getting sick. Some are shown convulsing before dying, and when dead, their mouths look sickly gross. One of the dead characters seen in close up is a child.
One character has their head cut open during an autopsy and you see some brain guts and a bloody squirt.
You learn a character had an affair.
You see people getting trampled as a riot breaks out at a store that runs out of some medicine and some fighting when the emergency crews run out of food.
You see several people buried in a mass grave.
Some discussion questions:
How did this make you feel about people coughing or sneezing around you and touching things other people touch?
Would you react the same way the father did protecting his daughter?
How accurate do you suppose the information on the Internet is? What sources do you trust?
Cheers!
Basically the film is about the transmission of a super virus that quickly kills. You get a little bits of the story as doctors and scientists try to figure out what's happening and how the Centers for Disease Control tries to keep the population from panicking. You also get a dose of blogger spin, profiteering, kidnapping, blackmail, looting, insider protectionism, etc. The movie touches on the reaction to the swine flu pandemic two years ago, too. You also see a lot of germs getting passed around. People coughing, touching things, then other people touching those things. Makes you want to reach for hand sanitizer. A lot is going on, but the extreme craziness/hysteria found in blockbusters was missing. It felt realistic in many ways.
The film fascinated me, even though I felt it was a bit choppy. Side note: I didn't feel this way about another one of Steven Soderbergh's movies, "Traffic," which similarly tells the story from many points of view. That one is one of my favorites; I even bought it for my dad as a gift. The choppiness and multitude story lines made "Contagion" feel longer than 105 minutes to me. Personally I felt the story arc of the World Health Organization's doc (Marion Cotillard) didn't need to go beyond identifying the index patient. However, I assume this had to make the movie cut to get into the extremes a population goes through to get their hands on a vaccine.
I was nicely surprised with the movie's "balance" for Hollywood. Seriously. My guest leaned in and said he couldn't believe the government wasn't overtly the bad guy, as often is the case. The film has many shades of gray as characters worked out ethics and figuring out with this crazy new disease, but none of the stories were especially amazing. Some of it was clearly predictable. The only clear heroes, it seems, are the scientists, who defy protocol to figure out the virus, which then leads to the vaccine. As a former reporter, I enjoyed seeing the behind the scenes discussions focused on the spin.
Overall, I'd give the film a B-. The acting was solid and idea was good and timely. It influenced me to not touch my face until I washed my hands. I may start carrying hand sanitizer in my purse all the time and not just at touristy places.
As for the kids, it is a PG-13 film. Only you know what they can handle. It's scary in the sense that it is realistic. There are some disturbing images and language (don't recall anything too bad). Some things you should know:
Several characters die after getting sick. Some are shown convulsing before dying, and when dead, their mouths look sickly gross. One of the dead characters seen in close up is a child.
One character has their head cut open during an autopsy and you see some brain guts and a bloody squirt.
You learn a character had an affair.
You see people getting trampled as a riot breaks out at a store that runs out of some medicine and some fighting when the emergency crews run out of food.
You see several people buried in a mass grave.
Some discussion questions:
How did this make you feel about people coughing or sneezing around you and touching things other people touch?
Would you react the same way the father did protecting his daughter?
How accurate do you suppose the information on the Internet is? What sources do you trust?
Cheers!
Friday, September 2, 2011
Dinner & movie all in one
I never thought I'd say that I'm willing to pay more than $7.50 for a movie ticket. Usually that's my threshold because once you add popcorn and drinks, going to a movie can be a little pricey for a family of four. But I'm gonna make an exception every now and then for the new AMC Esplanade 14, opening for business on Sept. 7. I'm told tickets run $6-$15, depending on day of the week, movie time and experience (Fork & Screen or Cinema Suites). Do check the theater's web site for updates on pricing.
I'm already dreaming of date night on those comfy leather recliner chairs that are in the Cinema Suites auditoriums, aimed at the over-21 crowd. Martini and appetizer for me, please. Food and bar prices, we found, are fairly comparable to those you find at a casual restaurant bar.
Cinema Suites seats I'm told go for $9-$15, depending on time. The higher-priced seats compared to typical movie prices of $5-10 at most theaters is well worth the comfort for me. I mostly love that there won't be kids running up and down the aisles or crying. Is that bad for a mom to say? The only negative, really, is being too comfy. I can see us falling asleep, especially if we eat too much.
There's also the Fork & Screen, where you can order dinner with your movie. Seats are comfy, too, but not as luxurious as Cinema Suites. This is aimed at 18 and older, but kids are welcome with an adult.
I don't see this dine-in theater as a regular experience for us, mostly because of a 30-minute drive for us versus the typical 10-20 minutes for the other theaters that we frequent. We also don't typically do dinner and a movie because of the combined expense, easily $85 or more. But we really felt the experience was worth the additional cost, at least every now and then, when we decide to pair both on the same night.
During our sneak peeks, our service was good. Waiters quickly and quietly took our order. If we needed anything, we had a call button handy. But we didn't have to use it since we were regularly asked if we wanted a refill or extra food when our order came in or cleared away. However, I can see some people not liking this because it may interrupt the movie. Your bill comes about an hour into the movie.
The food was much more reasonably priced than I expected. I guess all those trips to the movie snack counter had me afraid to look. Most dishes were priced $8.99 to $11.99, about the same or slightly more than what you'd find in fast-casual restaurants. Offerings included pizzettas, sandwiches, burgers and quesadillas. There is a kid's menu for 12 and younger. Those run $6.99 and include an entree, drink and chips, fries or fruit cup. You can get more expensive specialty dishes, too. When we went the special menu included lobster ravioli, salmon, calamari and tenderloin tips.
The food wasn't impressive. It wasn't bad, though. Our feeling is to stick to the basics, quesadillas, burgers and sandwiches instead of the higher-end meals. On the first night, I opted for the ravioli, which didn't seem worth $17.99. If it were $8.99, I wouldn't have been disappointed. I also wasn't impressed with the beer-battered buffalo chicken tenders ($11.99), but my daughter liked them. My son enjoyed his burger ($9.49) and my husband liked the country fried steak, potatoes and veggies ($11.99). Word of caution, it is filling. Dessert was yummy. We shared the Citrus Berry Stack ($6.49). Other desserts are priced $5.99 to $6.49. Non-alcoholic beverages, including tea, soft drinks, smoothie and shakes, were $2.49 to $4.99.
Before the movie started, we had an appetizer and drinks in the lobby bar. My sour apple martini was $7.99 and a large Blue Moon beer was $6.99. A sampler with wings, cheese sticks, onion rings and chips was $12.99. We decided that wasn't worth the cost, but the drink prices weren't shocking.
I think either Fork & Screen or Cinema Suites is a nice option for date night when you are short on time (and possibly childcare funds) to do both dinner and a movie or want to splurge on the kids for a good report card. You don't have to go all out, so sharing an appetizer or two and having soft drinks may make it more budget friendly.
Cheers!
I'm already dreaming of date night on those comfy leather recliner chairs that are in the Cinema Suites auditoriums, aimed at the over-21 crowd. Martini and appetizer for me, please. Food and bar prices, we found, are fairly comparable to those you find at a casual restaurant bar.
Cinema Suites seats I'm told go for $9-$15, depending on time. The higher-priced seats compared to typical movie prices of $5-10 at most theaters is well worth the comfort for me. I mostly love that there won't be kids running up and down the aisles or crying. Is that bad for a mom to say? The only negative, really, is being too comfy. I can see us falling asleep, especially if we eat too much.
There's also the Fork & Screen, where you can order dinner with your movie. Seats are comfy, too, but not as luxurious as Cinema Suites. This is aimed at 18 and older, but kids are welcome with an adult.
I don't see this dine-in theater as a regular experience for us, mostly because of a 30-minute drive for us versus the typical 10-20 minutes for the other theaters that we frequent. We also don't typically do dinner and a movie because of the combined expense, easily $85 or more. But we really felt the experience was worth the additional cost, at least every now and then, when we decide to pair both on the same night.
During our sneak peeks, our service was good. Waiters quickly and quietly took our order. If we needed anything, we had a call button handy. But we didn't have to use it since we were regularly asked if we wanted a refill or extra food when our order came in or cleared away. However, I can see some people not liking this because it may interrupt the movie. Your bill comes about an hour into the movie.
The food was much more reasonably priced than I expected. I guess all those trips to the movie snack counter had me afraid to look. Most dishes were priced $8.99 to $11.99, about the same or slightly more than what you'd find in fast-casual restaurants. Offerings included pizzettas, sandwiches, burgers and quesadillas. There is a kid's menu for 12 and younger. Those run $6.99 and include an entree, drink and chips, fries or fruit cup. You can get more expensive specialty dishes, too. When we went the special menu included lobster ravioli, salmon, calamari and tenderloin tips.
The food wasn't impressive. It wasn't bad, though. Our feeling is to stick to the basics, quesadillas, burgers and sandwiches instead of the higher-end meals. On the first night, I opted for the ravioli, which didn't seem worth $17.99. If it were $8.99, I wouldn't have been disappointed. I also wasn't impressed with the beer-battered buffalo chicken tenders ($11.99), but my daughter liked them. My son enjoyed his burger ($9.49) and my husband liked the country fried steak, potatoes and veggies ($11.99). Word of caution, it is filling. Dessert was yummy. We shared the Citrus Berry Stack ($6.49). Other desserts are priced $5.99 to $6.49. Non-alcoholic beverages, including tea, soft drinks, smoothie and shakes, were $2.49 to $4.99.
Before the movie started, we had an appetizer and drinks in the lobby bar. My sour apple martini was $7.99 and a large Blue Moon beer was $6.99. A sampler with wings, cheese sticks, onion rings and chips was $12.99. We decided that wasn't worth the cost, but the drink prices weren't shocking.
I think either Fork & Screen or Cinema Suites is a nice option for date night when you are short on time (and possibly childcare funds) to do both dinner and a movie or want to splurge on the kids for a good report card. You don't have to go all out, so sharing an appetizer or two and having soft drinks may make it more budget friendly.
Cheers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)