When I first saw the trailer for “We Bought a Zoo,” I thought this could be quite a touching and inspiring movie or it could be overly sappy. Would my kids go for sappy? They prefer funny and action. Hmm. Maybe it would be funny? Luckily, it did have some comic relief, but mostly it was a moving film with a message to dream. And while it is a sentimental movie, I came away feeling it was more touching than sappy.
The movie, based on a true story, is about reporter Benjamin Mee (Matt Damon) coping with the death of his wife and raising a family. He’s challenged by his son’s increased moodiness and penchant for getting in trouble (stealing, bizarre drawings that concern school officials, getting expelled). Benjamin finds he needs a change for his family, so he quits his job and seeks a new home. The perfect one just happens to be attached to a zoo. He takes the plunge, hoping that getting the zoo ready to open will bring the family together. He gets help from the zoo staff, who cared for the animals while the house was empty. It’s a struggle emotionally and financially. Just as Benjamin readies to end his adventure, thinking he’s run out of cash, he finds that his late wife built a little nest egg that allows the zoo to move forward. Happy, happy. Also stars Scarlett Johansson, Thomas Haden Church and Elle Fanning. My grade: B+ BTW, my kids both gave it an A+.
“We Bought a Zoo” is rated PG for language and some thematic images. What you should know if you take kids:
-Some disturbing, violent art images produced by teenage son.
-Some of the bad language comes from a frustrated teen.
-Suspense as one of the zoo staff has to fix a lock to a cage as the other distracts the animal.
-The mom has died, so there are flashbacks to when she was alive. (This may lead to some questions from little ones).
-A bear looks as though it will attack one of the characters.
-One of the animals is very sick and eventually dies.
-Some social drinking is shown.
-Some young love/flirtation drama.
This is a great movie for a family chat after. So much to talk about, from coping with death, teen emotions, daring to dream, facing adversity, etc.
Cheers!
Friday, December 23, 2011
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Tintin's adventure a little too familiar
Walking into a screening of "The Adventures of Tintin," all I really knew was Steven Spielberg was involved and the boy-reporter character in the title was popular in Europe. Several of my mom friends were fans as kids. I don't remember this one from my youth.
The film pulls from several of the Tintin comic books, primarily "The Crab with the Golden Claws," "The Secret of the Unicorn" and "Red Rackham's Treasure" The story starts with Tintin buying a replica of the Unicorn, a 17th century ship that unbeknownst to Tintin holds a key clue to a great treasure. Suddently strangers offer to buy it at any price. Of course this piques Tintin's interest. Later the ship is stolen, but not before the clue falls out for Tintin to find, kick starting quite the perilous adventure for Tintin and his faithful dog, Snowy. Tintin is kidnapped, shot at, jumps ship, nearly dies in a plane crash, wanders the desert, flies through the air, etc. etc. It feels a lot like an animated young Indiana Jones story. Tintin is joined by the very drunk Captain Haddock, an ancestor of the Unicorn's captain, who went down with the treasure. There's also a side story about a wallet thief that brings comic relief.
It's entertaining, but it isn't too memorable. C+
The movie is rated PG for adventure action violence, smoking and some drunkenness. The film is geared toward older children and adults familiar with junior reporter/sleuth Tintin.
If you bring little ones:
-Captain Haddock is drunk most of the film, and he isn't ashamed of it. For example, he drinks the medicinal alcohol on the airplane. When it's needed to keep the engine going, he belches the remains to keep in flight.
-Hero Tintin is put in many perilous situations. Including nearly crashing in the plane, nearly falling into the plane's propellers, getting kidnapped, escaping gun fire, etc.
Enjoy!
The film pulls from several of the Tintin comic books, primarily "The Crab with the Golden Claws," "The Secret of the Unicorn" and "Red Rackham's Treasure" The story starts with Tintin buying a replica of the Unicorn, a 17th century ship that unbeknownst to Tintin holds a key clue to a great treasure. Suddently strangers offer to buy it at any price. Of course this piques Tintin's interest. Later the ship is stolen, but not before the clue falls out for Tintin to find, kick starting quite the perilous adventure for Tintin and his faithful dog, Snowy. Tintin is kidnapped, shot at, jumps ship, nearly dies in a plane crash, wanders the desert, flies through the air, etc. etc. It feels a lot like an animated young Indiana Jones story. Tintin is joined by the very drunk Captain Haddock, an ancestor of the Unicorn's captain, who went down with the treasure. There's also a side story about a wallet thief that brings comic relief.
It's entertaining, but it isn't too memorable. C+
The movie is rated PG for adventure action violence, smoking and some drunkenness. The film is geared toward older children and adults familiar with junior reporter/sleuth Tintin.
If you bring little ones:
-Captain Haddock is drunk most of the film, and he isn't ashamed of it. For example, he drinks the medicinal alcohol on the airplane. When it's needed to keep the engine going, he belches the remains to keep in flight.
-Hero Tintin is put in many perilous situations. Including nearly crashing in the plane, nearly falling into the plane's propellers, getting kidnapped, escaping gun fire, etc.
Enjoy!
Friday, December 16, 2011
Love me some action: "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" & "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol"
I'm always looking for movies that my husband and I would enjoy whenever we can steal away a moment for ourselves. I had the chance to screen Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows and Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, both opening today. I can't wait to see them again on a future date night.
I wanted to see the Sherlock Holmes sequel much more than the fourth Mission Impossible movie. Sherlock has Robert Downey Jr., an amazing actor who has aged well. Yes, I like a little eye candy on date nights. I'm not crazy about Tom Cruise, but my bias comes from his personal beliefs. His movies are generally entertaining, and he has done some good work.
Both were great unbelievable fun and cool to watch, as anticipated. Mission Impossible, opening first on IMAX before its national theater release Dec. 21, looked amazing. You felt as if you were there for every insane, dizzying action sequence. The climb up the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, the world's tallest building, thrilled. The action sequences were superior in Mission: Impossible, directed by Brad Bird (The Incredibles), which finally returns to the quality of the original franchise film. But Sherlock offered much more witty banter plus a comical bromance between Holmes (Downey Jr.) and Dr. John Watson (Jude Law). I'm not a big fan of director Guy Richie's slo-mo technique, made totally annoying with the explanatory dialogue.
Sherlock Holmes picks up with Watson readying for his wedding and retiring from the sleuthing game. But Holmes learns of wicked plot by arch nemesis Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris), who plans to corner the arms market while creating conflict in Europe. Moriarty also isn't willing to let Watson fade into marital bliss. Some big guns are set out on him, and Holmes is off to the rescue. Crowd pleasing explosions rule as this dynamic duo sets off to thwart Moriarty's evil plans. You'll find yourself chuckling at some of the crazy disguises. The end opens the door for yet another sequel. Grade: B.
In Mission: Impossible, we find IMF agent Ethan Hunt in a Russian prison for reasons unknown. An IMF team breaks him out, but he doesn't go without his new friend, who obviously will prove useful later in the movie. Ethan and his team set out on a mission to recover files from the Kremlin. But another group with evil plans to start a nuclear war beats them and blow up the place, too. Guess who is blamed? The IMF is disavowed and Hunt and his team must now recover stolen nuclear launch codes and stop bad guy Kurt Hendricks (Swedish actor Michael Nyqvist). In the meantime, we learn one of the IMF team members (played by Jeremy Renner) has a secret past with Ethan, as well as what happened to Ethan's wife from the third film. Grade: B+.
If you take your kids, know that both are PG-13 primarily for action/violent sequences. None are gory, but people do die. There is mild language and drinking. In Mission: Impossible a character is flirtatious and dressed sexy, but there isn't a sex scene. In Sherlock Holmes a character is gambling. I have no problem taking my 11 year old to either of these.
Cheers!
I wanted to see the Sherlock Holmes sequel much more than the fourth Mission Impossible movie. Sherlock has Robert Downey Jr., an amazing actor who has aged well. Yes, I like a little eye candy on date nights. I'm not crazy about Tom Cruise, but my bias comes from his personal beliefs. His movies are generally entertaining, and he has done some good work.
Both were great unbelievable fun and cool to watch, as anticipated. Mission Impossible, opening first on IMAX before its national theater release Dec. 21, looked amazing. You felt as if you were there for every insane, dizzying action sequence. The climb up the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, the world's tallest building, thrilled. The action sequences were superior in Mission: Impossible, directed by Brad Bird (The Incredibles), which finally returns to the quality of the original franchise film. But Sherlock offered much more witty banter plus a comical bromance between Holmes (Downey Jr.) and Dr. John Watson (Jude Law). I'm not a big fan of director Guy Richie's slo-mo technique, made totally annoying with the explanatory dialogue.
Sherlock Holmes picks up with Watson readying for his wedding and retiring from the sleuthing game. But Holmes learns of wicked plot by arch nemesis Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris), who plans to corner the arms market while creating conflict in Europe. Moriarty also isn't willing to let Watson fade into marital bliss. Some big guns are set out on him, and Holmes is off to the rescue. Crowd pleasing explosions rule as this dynamic duo sets off to thwart Moriarty's evil plans. You'll find yourself chuckling at some of the crazy disguises. The end opens the door for yet another sequel. Grade: B.
In Mission: Impossible, we find IMF agent Ethan Hunt in a Russian prison for reasons unknown. An IMF team breaks him out, but he doesn't go without his new friend, who obviously will prove useful later in the movie. Ethan and his team set out on a mission to recover files from the Kremlin. But another group with evil plans to start a nuclear war beats them and blow up the place, too. Guess who is blamed? The IMF is disavowed and Hunt and his team must now recover stolen nuclear launch codes and stop bad guy Kurt Hendricks (Swedish actor Michael Nyqvist). In the meantime, we learn one of the IMF team members (played by Jeremy Renner) has a secret past with Ethan, as well as what happened to Ethan's wife from the third film. Grade: B+.
If you take your kids, know that both are PG-13 primarily for action/violent sequences. None are gory, but people do die. There is mild language and drinking. In Mission: Impossible a character is flirtatious and dressed sexy, but there isn't a sex scene. In Sherlock Holmes a character is gambling. I have no problem taking my 11 year old to either of these.
Cheers!
Thursday, December 15, 2011
The appeal of Alvin and the Chipmunks
I must be honest, learning that a third Chipmunk movie was being released had me thinking, why? I reminded myself, "Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked" is not for me.
NOT FOR ME. I repeated this often.
It's for the children, those angelic innocents who find chirpy voices funny or cute or both. It's for kiddies who laugh when things get knocked down and adults are dorks and dumb. Juvenile equals hilarious.
If you've seen the previous movies, you know they are silly kid fantasy. The humor is generally aimed at the under 10 crowd, with a sprinkling of clean pop culture references. Is it good? Well, if you are six, I'd say sure. Plenty of smart and funny kid films came out this year. Kung Fu Panda 2, Rio, Puss in Boots and The Muppets rocked. The Chipmunks aren't in the same class.
The third Chipmunks movie kicks off as the boys, Alvin, Simon and Theodore; girl group Chipettes and adoptive dad Dave (Jason Lee) head to a vacation singing the Go-Go's, a little break before performing on a big music awards show. As soon as they board the cruise ship, the boys find themselves in TROUBLE (cue Pink's hit "Trouble"). Dave yells a lot, as expected. Then brainy chipmunk Simon pleads, "Kids will rise to the occasion if you give them a little trust." But, duh, Alvin (voiced by Justin Long) has to push buttons and get in BIG trouble before he can learn a lesson. Thus, the furry tweens take flight and end up on a deserted island where they bump into a stranded cargo pilot (think Castaway), who is a bit crazy. Alvin behaves responsibly and Simon become Simone, a lover and daredevil, after a bug bite. Dave and Ian, the malicious music agent from previous movies played by David Cross, must team up to rescue the chipmunks.
The chipmunk adventure is never too perilous, gotta keep it light and sing-songy. There are moments of laughter, but the deeper meanings will be lost on little ones who may not know of Charlie Sheen, Jersey Shore, Castaway or Sarah Palin. But there is plenty of predictable silliness: Laughter flowed during a scene where Ian, in a pelican suit, makes a bed in a nest, as well as the line, "You mess with me ese, I go loco on you."
My rating: D
My son and his friend (ages 13 and 14): B
What you need to know: The movie is rated G. The humor is aimed at kids, so there isn't anything truly racy, but Simon does get flirty and one of the boys after hitting a tree cries for his "acorns."
NOT FOR ME. I repeated this often.
It's for the children, those angelic innocents who find chirpy voices funny or cute or both. It's for kiddies who laugh when things get knocked down and adults are dorks and dumb. Juvenile equals hilarious.
If you've seen the previous movies, you know they are silly kid fantasy. The humor is generally aimed at the under 10 crowd, with a sprinkling of clean pop culture references. Is it good? Well, if you are six, I'd say sure. Plenty of smart and funny kid films came out this year. Kung Fu Panda 2, Rio, Puss in Boots and The Muppets rocked. The Chipmunks aren't in the same class.
The third Chipmunks movie kicks off as the boys, Alvin, Simon and Theodore; girl group Chipettes and adoptive dad Dave (Jason Lee) head to a vacation singing the Go-Go's, a little break before performing on a big music awards show. As soon as they board the cruise ship, the boys find themselves in TROUBLE (cue Pink's hit "Trouble"). Dave yells a lot, as expected. Then brainy chipmunk Simon pleads, "Kids will rise to the occasion if you give them a little trust." But, duh, Alvin (voiced by Justin Long) has to push buttons and get in BIG trouble before he can learn a lesson. Thus, the furry tweens take flight and end up on a deserted island where they bump into a stranded cargo pilot (think Castaway), who is a bit crazy. Alvin behaves responsibly and Simon become Simone, a lover and daredevil, after a bug bite. Dave and Ian, the malicious music agent from previous movies played by David Cross, must team up to rescue the chipmunks.
The chipmunk adventure is never too perilous, gotta keep it light and sing-songy. There are moments of laughter, but the deeper meanings will be lost on little ones who may not know of Charlie Sheen, Jersey Shore, Castaway or Sarah Palin. But there is plenty of predictable silliness: Laughter flowed during a scene where Ian, in a pelican suit, makes a bed in a nest, as well as the line, "You mess with me ese, I go loco on you."
My rating: D
My son and his friend (ages 13 and 14): B
What you need to know: The movie is rated G. The humor is aimed at kids, so there isn't anything truly racy, but Simon does get flirty and one of the boys after hitting a tree cries for his "acorns."
Thursday, December 8, 2011
"New Year's Eve" offers predictable sentimentality
Walking into a screening of "New Year's Eve," I knew that I wouldn't be watching a masterpiece. I was just hoping this Garry Marshall mega-ensemble film wouldn't feel like a mediocre and predictable made-for-TV movie, as did his first holiday ensemble "Valentine's Day." New Year's Eve is a hopeful holiday — putting the past in the past, celebrating the prospects of the future, making good changes in your life — right?
Well, "New Year's Eve" isn't anything special and it is predictable, but I did like it more than the first. Maybe it's the sappy sentimentality of the holiday season that made me like it more. Besides, I got to play spot the celebrity with my daughter. And at least three of them (Ashton Kutcher, Hector Elizondo and Jessica Biel) were in "Valentine's Day," too. I can see this as a movie with girlfriends or a date-night movie, but he'll probably tease you about it later.
The film suffers from way too many stories, which leaves you no time to really care for anyone. It starts with Michelle Pfeiffer's mousy secretary who quits her job and hires a 20-something courier (Zac Efron) to help her fulfill her crazy resolutions list. Hilary Swank is an executive in charge of the New Year's Eve ball drop, and as expected, it gets stuck. She makes a sappy speech that every other character seems to hear, and it resonates with them. She also needs to make sure rock star Jensen (Jon Bon Jovi) makes it to his Times Square performance on time. But he's moping for his ex-girlfriend (Katherine Heigl), who's catering a record company's party and still angry with him about their relationship. Ashton Kutcher is a grump who gets stuck in an elevator with Jensen's back-up singer (Glee's Lea Michelle). Yes, they find love (it's not a spoiler, it's expected). Meanwhile, Sarah Jessica Parker plays a divorced mom who is known for her clogs and has made no time for love. She's spending the evening with her daughter (Abigail Breslin), who would rather spend the night with friends in Times Square so she can get kissed by the boy (Wizards of Waverly Place's Jake T. Austin) she likes. So, at her first opportunity, she takes off, leaving mom to look for her. There's the record company heir/playboy (Josh Duhamel) who longs to reconnect with a woman he met last New Year's Eve. There's also a man (Robert DeNiro), who is in a hospital hoping to see the ball drop before he dies, as he's refusing anymore treatment. Oh, and a couple (Seth Myers and Jessica Biel) who are trying to win $25,000 for delivering the first baby of the new year. Of course there are many interconnected relationships. Exhausting!
Among the cameos: Sofia Vergara (sous chef), John Lithgow (record company exec), Cary Elwes (doctor), Halle Berry (nurse), Alyssa Milano (nurse), Jim Belushi (building super), Hector Elizondo (star electrician), rapper Common (soldier), Sarah Paulson (other pregnant lady), Ludacris (NYC police officer) and Carla Gugino (spiritual obstetrician).
It was funny at times. Modern Family's Vergara delivers some great lines as a fan hot for Jensen, and the baby bit with Meyers and Biel is silly fun. Most jokes are forgettable, though. I felt touched by the story just twice. One was totally predictable (dying man) and the other a nice surprise (soldier), but only because it comes out of no where. Overall, it's just OK entertainment. C-.
The movie is rated PG-13. My almost 12 year-old daughter wanted to see it, and I didn't have a problem. I figured there wouldn't be anything too crazy. I had seen Valentine's Day and found nothing that hasn't been on a sitcom. There is an F-word and some sexual references, but nothing explicit. BTW, she gives the movie four stars, or a B.
Cheers!
Well, "New Year's Eve" isn't anything special and it is predictable, but I did like it more than the first. Maybe it's the sappy sentimentality of the holiday season that made me like it more. Besides, I got to play spot the celebrity with my daughter. And at least three of them (Ashton Kutcher, Hector Elizondo and Jessica Biel) were in "Valentine's Day," too. I can see this as a movie with girlfriends or a date-night movie, but he'll probably tease you about it later.
The film suffers from way too many stories, which leaves you no time to really care for anyone. It starts with Michelle Pfeiffer's mousy secretary who quits her job and hires a 20-something courier (Zac Efron) to help her fulfill her crazy resolutions list. Hilary Swank is an executive in charge of the New Year's Eve ball drop, and as expected, it gets stuck. She makes a sappy speech that every other character seems to hear, and it resonates with them. She also needs to make sure rock star Jensen (Jon Bon Jovi) makes it to his Times Square performance on time. But he's moping for his ex-girlfriend (Katherine Heigl), who's catering a record company's party and still angry with him about their relationship. Ashton Kutcher is a grump who gets stuck in an elevator with Jensen's back-up singer (Glee's Lea Michelle). Yes, they find love (it's not a spoiler, it's expected). Meanwhile, Sarah Jessica Parker plays a divorced mom who is known for her clogs and has made no time for love. She's spending the evening with her daughter (Abigail Breslin), who would rather spend the night with friends in Times Square so she can get kissed by the boy (Wizards of Waverly Place's Jake T. Austin) she likes. So, at her first opportunity, she takes off, leaving mom to look for her. There's the record company heir/playboy (Josh Duhamel) who longs to reconnect with a woman he met last New Year's Eve. There's also a man (Robert DeNiro), who is in a hospital hoping to see the ball drop before he dies, as he's refusing anymore treatment. Oh, and a couple (Seth Myers and Jessica Biel) who are trying to win $25,000 for delivering the first baby of the new year. Of course there are many interconnected relationships. Exhausting!
Among the cameos: Sofia Vergara (sous chef), John Lithgow (record company exec), Cary Elwes (doctor), Halle Berry (nurse), Alyssa Milano (nurse), Jim Belushi (building super), Hector Elizondo (star electrician), rapper Common (soldier), Sarah Paulson (other pregnant lady), Ludacris (NYC police officer) and Carla Gugino (spiritual obstetrician).
It was funny at times. Modern Family's Vergara delivers some great lines as a fan hot for Jensen, and the baby bit with Meyers and Biel is silly fun. Most jokes are forgettable, though. I felt touched by the story just twice. One was totally predictable (dying man) and the other a nice surprise (soldier), but only because it comes out of no where. Overall, it's just OK entertainment. C-.
The movie is rated PG-13. My almost 12 year-old daughter wanted to see it, and I didn't have a problem. I figured there wouldn't be anything too crazy. I had seen Valentine's Day and found nothing that hasn't been on a sitcom. There is an F-word and some sexual references, but nothing explicit. BTW, she gives the movie four stars, or a B.
Cheers!
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Arthur Christmas, The Muppets and Hugo...oh and Happy Feet Two
These family movies opened just in time for Thanksgiving. You'll likely to catch them through the end of the year. "The Muppets" and "Hugo" were very good, but Muppets ruled. "Arthur Christmas" was a sweet and sometimes funny holiday story, and well, I didn't care for "Happy Feet Two." I did like Pink's singing, though.
More thoughts:
"Arthur Christmas" (PG) - I know, another Christmas movie. This one isn't bad. But I didn't think it was great either. If you're tight on money, well, it won't be hurt to wait to see this one. There are funny moments as Arthur, grand Santa and a wrapping-obsessed elf go on a journey to get the one gift Santa forgot to deliver before a questioning child gets disappointed. But I felt much of the movies humor will be lost on kids. It was on the three girls, ages 10 and 11, that I brought with me. But they all thought it was sweet and good for getting into the Christmas spirit. C
Things to know: If you have little ones, a scene where some animals are ready to attack may startle. But there is levity in this scene, too. Kids may also worry about some dangerous situations (erratic sled ride, lost at sea, stranded on beach) Arthur and company get into trying to delivery the forgotten gift.
"The Muppets" (PG)- It was cheesy, but it was done so well that I was rolling with laughter in my seat. So many jokes paying homage to the past shows, but you may feel like it's a bit of a Disney commercial. Best scene in my humble opinion was the "Man or Muppet" song. Reminded me of musical comedy of Flight of the Conchords, so I had to look. Yes, one half of the duo, Bret McKenzie, wrote it. My daughter loved scenes such as Kermit's first appearance, as if it were heaven sent, and Miss Piggy fretting over what doughnut to eat first. We enjoyed playing spot the celebrity cameo and left the theater happy, happy, happy. B+
What you should know: Chris Cooper plays a bad guy, and there are some Muppet thugs working for him. But in classic Disney style, all ends well for the good. A fight breaks out during an anger management class. A character blows up his business. A character is kidnapped and forced to perform in a show.
"Hugo" (PG) - I saw this in 3D this past weekend. The reviews were fantastic, so I had to see it. I was beautifully framed and the sets were amazing. The story was good, too, about a curious orphaned boy searching for a message his father may have left in an automatron he was fixing. It leads him to uncover a mystery about an aloof man's past, all with a happy ending. But I felt it was too drawn out. It's 2 hours and 6 minutes, and for that reason I give it a B-.
What you should know: Hugo is orphaned; his father's death isn't graphic, but you do see explosive fire before the scene cuts. His uncle is a drunk and not very nice. Other characters (toy store owner, train station guard) aren't very nice to Hugo, too, and may appear scary to young children. Perilous scenes with a train coming off it's tracks and on the clock tower as well as Hugo's transformation into a mechanical boy in a dream may be upsetting.
"Happy Feet Two" (PG) - I wanted to leave the theater soon after this follow up to Happy Feet started. Guess I have no patience for baby-talking penguins. A side story of two krill looking for more out of life was amusing at times, but really only seemed a way to get Matt Damon and Brad Pitt speaking roles that just made the movie longer. I was not happy. My husband called me a Grinch. Fine! D
What you should know: The krill story may open some discussion about how can two males start a family. It's very subtle, though. Little ones may be frightened by the predatory birds, leopard seal chasing a penguin and the confrontation between penguin and elephant seals.
More thoughts:
"Arthur Christmas" (PG) - I know, another Christmas movie. This one isn't bad. But I didn't think it was great either. If you're tight on money, well, it won't be hurt to wait to see this one. There are funny moments as Arthur, grand Santa and a wrapping-obsessed elf go on a journey to get the one gift Santa forgot to deliver before a questioning child gets disappointed. But I felt much of the movies humor will be lost on kids. It was on the three girls, ages 10 and 11, that I brought with me. But they all thought it was sweet and good for getting into the Christmas spirit. C
Things to know: If you have little ones, a scene where some animals are ready to attack may startle. But there is levity in this scene, too. Kids may also worry about some dangerous situations (erratic sled ride, lost at sea, stranded on beach) Arthur and company get into trying to delivery the forgotten gift.
"The Muppets" (PG)- It was cheesy, but it was done so well that I was rolling with laughter in my seat. So many jokes paying homage to the past shows, but you may feel like it's a bit of a Disney commercial. Best scene in my humble opinion was the "Man or Muppet" song. Reminded me of musical comedy of Flight of the Conchords, so I had to look. Yes, one half of the duo, Bret McKenzie, wrote it. My daughter loved scenes such as Kermit's first appearance, as if it were heaven sent, and Miss Piggy fretting over what doughnut to eat first. We enjoyed playing spot the celebrity cameo and left the theater happy, happy, happy. B+
What you should know: Chris Cooper plays a bad guy, and there are some Muppet thugs working for him. But in classic Disney style, all ends well for the good. A fight breaks out during an anger management class. A character blows up his business. A character is kidnapped and forced to perform in a show.
"Hugo" (PG) - I saw this in 3D this past weekend. The reviews were fantastic, so I had to see it. I was beautifully framed and the sets were amazing. The story was good, too, about a curious orphaned boy searching for a message his father may have left in an automatron he was fixing. It leads him to uncover a mystery about an aloof man's past, all with a happy ending. But I felt it was too drawn out. It's 2 hours and 6 minutes, and for that reason I give it a B-.
What you should know: Hugo is orphaned; his father's death isn't graphic, but you do see explosive fire before the scene cuts. His uncle is a drunk and not very nice. Other characters (toy store owner, train station guard) aren't very nice to Hugo, too, and may appear scary to young children. Perilous scenes with a train coming off it's tracks and on the clock tower as well as Hugo's transformation into a mechanical boy in a dream may be upsetting.
"Happy Feet Two" (PG) - I wanted to leave the theater soon after this follow up to Happy Feet started. Guess I have no patience for baby-talking penguins. A side story of two krill looking for more out of life was amusing at times, but really only seemed a way to get Matt Damon and Brad Pitt speaking roles that just made the movie longer. I was not happy. My husband called me a Grinch. Fine! D
What you should know: The krill story may open some discussion about how can two males start a family. It's very subtle, though. Little ones may be frightened by the predatory birds, leopard seal chasing a penguin and the confrontation between penguin and elephant seals.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Breaking Dawn: What you should know
I decided to take my daughter to see "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1." This chapter of the story focuses on Edward and Bella's marriage and subsequent pregnancy.
Early on, I started second-guessing my decision. There are a few bloody scenes, more intense than in past films. And, of course, there's that sex scene now that the main characters are on their honeymoon. It's definitely iffy for Twilight-smitten tweens, who will beg you to see it. Mine did and I gave in. I don't regret it, but we have a very open communication line.
We talked about the scenes. My daughter said she thought they could have cut out some of the bedroom scene and blood. She's at that age where I know she's curious, but still embarrassed. She then started asking how Hollywood decides to film scenes and how covered the actors are in sexy situation. Oh my!
The overall movie is weak. But I doubt that will keep tweens, teens or moms who love the story away. This movie made me laugh out loud when I'm sure it wasn't intended. All I'll say is a wolf scene is quite silly. I've not been a fan of the films, though I think the acting and production value has improved. My grade is a D+. I think I may have given it a C- if I had a martini in hand. Is that bad? My daughter gave it a C. She thinks it would have been better if the bedroom scene was cut a bit more (she was ready to cover her eyes but didn't) and if there was less blood.
I personally wouldn't take anyone younger than 11 to this film, and that's only if you regularly talk about love, sex and Hollywood fantasy. Maturity is a must. I really think this is a PG-13 movie, but only you can decide what is best for your kids.
Here's what you need to know:
-Early on a main character has a disturbing dream where friends and family are in a bloody pile.
-The film has more skin than all others. Yes, Jake takes his shirt off. But you see a lot of Bella and Edward. I didn't notice any private parts, but the parts you see (backs, legs, stomach) are in sexy situations. There's a lot of romantic kissing.
-Bella gets very ill when pregnant, looking quite emaciated and gaunt. She's scary. She decides, despite warnings to end the pregnancy, that it's best to keep it.
-Tons of blood is shown. Bella sips on it to appease the baby. The birth scene is gory.
-Some violence, but there isn't so much fighting/biting in this one as in Eclipse. Some flashbacks show characters hurting others.
-Language was minimal. I've heard worse from kids at parks.
The movie is PG-13 for disturbing images, violence, sexuality/partial nudity and some thematic elements.
Enjoy!
Early on, I started second-guessing my decision. There are a few bloody scenes, more intense than in past films. And, of course, there's that sex scene now that the main characters are on their honeymoon. It's definitely iffy for Twilight-smitten tweens, who will beg you to see it. Mine did and I gave in. I don't regret it, but we have a very open communication line.
We talked about the scenes. My daughter said she thought they could have cut out some of the bedroom scene and blood. She's at that age where I know she's curious, but still embarrassed. She then started asking how Hollywood decides to film scenes and how covered the actors are in sexy situation. Oh my!
The overall movie is weak. But I doubt that will keep tweens, teens or moms who love the story away. This movie made me laugh out loud when I'm sure it wasn't intended. All I'll say is a wolf scene is quite silly. I've not been a fan of the films, though I think the acting and production value has improved. My grade is a D+. I think I may have given it a C- if I had a martini in hand. Is that bad? My daughter gave it a C. She thinks it would have been better if the bedroom scene was cut a bit more (she was ready to cover her eyes but didn't) and if there was less blood.
I personally wouldn't take anyone younger than 11 to this film, and that's only if you regularly talk about love, sex and Hollywood fantasy. Maturity is a must. I really think this is a PG-13 movie, but only you can decide what is best for your kids.
Here's what you need to know:
-Early on a main character has a disturbing dream where friends and family are in a bloody pile.
-The film has more skin than all others. Yes, Jake takes his shirt off. But you see a lot of Bella and Edward. I didn't notice any private parts, but the parts you see (backs, legs, stomach) are in sexy situations. There's a lot of romantic kissing.
-Bella gets very ill when pregnant, looking quite emaciated and gaunt. She's scary. She decides, despite warnings to end the pregnancy, that it's best to keep it.
-Tons of blood is shown. Bella sips on it to appease the baby. The birth scene is gory.
-Some violence, but there isn't so much fighting/biting in this one as in Eclipse. Some flashbacks show characters hurting others.
-Language was minimal. I've heard worse from kids at parks.
The movie is PG-13 for disturbing images, violence, sexuality/partial nudity and some thematic elements.
Enjoy!
Monday, November 14, 2011
Am I ready for my tween to see final Twilight chapter?
My daughter LOVES, LOVES, LOVES the Twilight series. She's not read the books, well, except the first half of book one. She's in love with the idea of true love. So she loves cheering on the romance between regular girl Bella and vampire Edward. I get it. I remember dreaming of how beautiful and romantic true love would be. Reality is another story.
She is 11 1/2 and in sixth grade. I know she likes boys but won't admit it exactly. We've had many chats about boys, everyone with at least one eye roll from my daughter. She knows that I find Bella to be quite a weak female character. I think she felt I was lecturing too much about "New Moon." I was seriously disappointed in Bella's character, proclaiming each time I could, "Don't ever think it's the end of the world if a boy leaves you!" and "Few people end up with their high school sweetheart." But I do like one thing about Bella. She remains chaste until she marries, largely because Edward is old school.
I've read all the books, and I know the series isn't graphic. There is sexual tension and release, but it's far, far from explicit. Still, the final Twilight book is filled with mature content. And I'm curious how Hollywood will feature this unusual couple's marriage consummation, pregnancy and life together.
My daughter knows that I prefer to preview "Breaking Dawn Part 1" without her. She's pleading to see it together and talk about it after. At least she expects a talk!
I'm trying to figure out how to have that talk and whether I give in to her request. She has seen plenty of PG-13 movies, which have lead to healthy discussions. Why does she have to grow up so fast?
She is 11 1/2 and in sixth grade. I know she likes boys but won't admit it exactly. We've had many chats about boys, everyone with at least one eye roll from my daughter. She knows that I find Bella to be quite a weak female character. I think she felt I was lecturing too much about "New Moon." I was seriously disappointed in Bella's character, proclaiming each time I could, "Don't ever think it's the end of the world if a boy leaves you!" and "Few people end up with their high school sweetheart." But I do like one thing about Bella. She remains chaste until she marries, largely because Edward is old school.
I've read all the books, and I know the series isn't graphic. There is sexual tension and release, but it's far, far from explicit. Still, the final Twilight book is filled with mature content. And I'm curious how Hollywood will feature this unusual couple's marriage consummation, pregnancy and life together.
My daughter knows that I prefer to preview "Breaking Dawn Part 1" without her. She's pleading to see it together and talk about it after. At least she expects a talk!
I'm trying to figure out how to have that talk and whether I give in to her request. She has seen plenty of PG-13 movies, which have lead to healthy discussions. Why does she have to grow up so fast?
Friday, November 11, 2011
What you should know about "Jack and Jill"
If you like Adam Sandler, you'll likely find his new family comedy "Jack and Jill" out today (11/11) amusing. There are a few laughs, but it's far from comic genius in my opinion.
Overall, it's a mediocre comedy about twins with very different personalities. The story starts with Jill coming over for Thanksgiving dinner, but ends up staying weeks and going on the long-planned family cruise, making Jack miserable. Happens, though, that Jack needs Jill to help him land a commercial deal with Al Pacino. Yes, Al falls for Jill, as shown in the movie trailer. She's not interested. The story is absurd. But it's expected in Adam Sandler comedies. And of course, everything wraps up nicely in the end.
My tween daughter really wanted to check it out after seeing the trailer, which had her and a friend laughing pretty much nonstop. My son opted to pass, saying he only likes action movies. Okay. So we went with another tween and her mom. The girls were laughing during much of the movie, even at the fart jokes. Seriously! My daughter's grade B. Mine was a D.
The acting isn't great; it's like watching a LONG comedy skit with LOTS of product placements. But I busted a laugh at the Al Pacino commercial bit near the end. It's absurd. And I couldn't believe Johnny Depp made a cameo. Check out his shirt. It's aimed at tweens who will likely go to see this movie.
Should you take little kids? It's rated PG for some crude material, comic violence, suggestive references and brief smoking. The mom who went with me said she thought 8 and up will be fine. I'm inclined to agree, but each family has their standards for appropriate content. Here's what you should know:
-Lots of "gross out" jokes about farts. weight and appearances. One character looks up another's dress to make sure she's a woman. Another hides in an unusual place to escape a bad date.
-Mild language and insults.
-One character makes many unwanted advances to another with some suggested dialogue. Dating jokes are abundant.
-Tons of product placement - you can play a game out of how many companies you recognize.
-Stereotypes of Mexicans (landscaper and crazy grandma) and food.
The movie does offer you a chance to talk about differences in people and how we can learn to accept each other's qualities. You can also talk about the overwhelming product placements and whether that influences movie watchers.
Cheers.
Overall, it's a mediocre comedy about twins with very different personalities. The story starts with Jill coming over for Thanksgiving dinner, but ends up staying weeks and going on the long-planned family cruise, making Jack miserable. Happens, though, that Jack needs Jill to help him land a commercial deal with Al Pacino. Yes, Al falls for Jill, as shown in the movie trailer. She's not interested. The story is absurd. But it's expected in Adam Sandler comedies. And of course, everything wraps up nicely in the end.
My tween daughter really wanted to check it out after seeing the trailer, which had her and a friend laughing pretty much nonstop. My son opted to pass, saying he only likes action movies. Okay. So we went with another tween and her mom. The girls were laughing during much of the movie, even at the fart jokes. Seriously! My daughter's grade B. Mine was a D.
The acting isn't great; it's like watching a LONG comedy skit with LOTS of product placements. But I busted a laugh at the Al Pacino commercial bit near the end. It's absurd. And I couldn't believe Johnny Depp made a cameo. Check out his shirt. It's aimed at tweens who will likely go to see this movie.
Should you take little kids? It's rated PG for some crude material, comic violence, suggestive references and brief smoking. The mom who went with me said she thought 8 and up will be fine. I'm inclined to agree, but each family has their standards for appropriate content. Here's what you should know:
-Lots of "gross out" jokes about farts. weight and appearances. One character looks up another's dress to make sure she's a woman. Another hides in an unusual place to escape a bad date.
-Mild language and insults.
-One character makes many unwanted advances to another with some suggested dialogue. Dating jokes are abundant.
-Tons of product placement - you can play a game out of how many companies you recognize.
-Stereotypes of Mexicans (landscaper and crazy grandma) and food.
The movie does offer you a chance to talk about differences in people and how we can learn to accept each other's qualities. You can also talk about the overwhelming product placements and whether that influences movie watchers.
Cheers.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Studio Movie Grill opens Nov. 11 - Get your free movie coupon!
Dinner and a movie at the theater is getting quite trendy in Phoenix. The newest Valley entry is Studio Movie Grill at 15515 N. Hayden Road (Hayden & Frank Lloyd Wright), Scottsdale. It's scheduled to open Nov. 11. Movie ticket prices vary.
The menu is filled with drinks, appetizers, burgers, chicken, quesadillas, tacos, desserts and even salads. Entrees are generally $6.25-$12.50. There's a kid's menu, too, as well as specials, such as Margarita Mondays ($2 off deal).
I'm a fan of this concept because it saves time. I am a time-starved mom. :) Prices are fairly close to fast-casual dining options. But you don't have to wait for a table and then rush to the movie. That to me is worth a few bucks.
While I know this benefits me, I sell it to my kids as a big treat to have dinner brought to their seat as they watch a new movie. This gets my angels to clean their rooms or be nice to each other. Maybe yours aren't as easily influenced. But mine get giddy with excitement when I mention going to a "fancy" theater. Why? They just think it's cool ordering burgers and chicken, and having someone refill their drinks. They're easy to impress.
To celebrate Studio Movie Grill's first location in the Phoenix-Scottsdale area, free tickets are being given away. Just click on this link to print out the coupon and enjoy a movie with a friend! The passes are good from Nov 11th through Dec 8th. Enjoy!
I've not checked out Studio Movie Grill yet. I'll post my thoughts on it once I go.
BTW, I noticed these items on theater's Web site. Check with theater for more info:
- Every weekend @ 11:00am showing @ ALL SMG Theaters.
$2.00 Admission
- Special Needs Screenings: "Auditoriums are adjusted with lights a little brighter, sound a little softer and no one minds if audience members dance, sing, shout or walk about during the movie and families can feel relaxed and comfortable enjoying the movie experience together."
Cheers!
The menu is filled with drinks, appetizers, burgers, chicken, quesadillas, tacos, desserts and even salads. Entrees are generally $6.25-$12.50. There's a kid's menu, too, as well as specials, such as Margarita Mondays ($2 off deal).
I'm a fan of this concept because it saves time. I am a time-starved mom. :) Prices are fairly close to fast-casual dining options. But you don't have to wait for a table and then rush to the movie. That to me is worth a few bucks.
While I know this benefits me, I sell it to my kids as a big treat to have dinner brought to their seat as they watch a new movie. This gets my angels to clean their rooms or be nice to each other. Maybe yours aren't as easily influenced. But mine get giddy with excitement when I mention going to a "fancy" theater. Why? They just think it's cool ordering burgers and chicken, and having someone refill their drinks. They're easy to impress.
To celebrate Studio Movie Grill's first location in the Phoenix-Scottsdale area, free tickets are being given away. Just click on this link to print out the coupon and enjoy a movie with a friend! The passes are good from Nov 11th through Dec 8th. Enjoy!
I've not checked out Studio Movie Grill yet. I'll post my thoughts on it once I go.
BTW, I noticed these items on theater's Web site. Check with theater for more info:
- Every weekend @ 11:00am showing @ ALL SMG Theaters.
$2.00 Admission
- Special Needs Screenings: "Auditoriums are adjusted with lights a little brighter, sound a little softer and no one minds if audience members dance, sing, shout or walk about during the movie and families can feel relaxed and comfortable enjoying the movie experience together."
Cheers!
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
"Footloose" remake gets you tapping your toes
I have fond memories of dancing and singing along to "Footloose" (PG, 1984) in junior high. I don't remember seeing it in a theater, but rather at a friend's house after it was on one of the premium movie channels. All of us crushed on Kevin Bacon and secretly wanted to be a bit wild like Lori Singer's Ariel character. So I knew I'd have to see the remake.
I was unable to make any of the screenings, so I barely got to see it this weekend with my daughter, one of her BFFs (both in sixth grade) and her mom. Both of us had our daughters watch the original first. And interestingly, they liked the original better. My daughter said it's because it was funnier. Guess she liked Chris Penn's version of Willard better.
Still, they laughed and danced in their seats watching the remake (featuring Kenny Wormald and Julianne Hough), which follows the original storyline closely: new kid comes to town, can't understand why dancing is outlawed and tried to get the town to agree to put on a senior prom. Some changes include showing the deathly crash that lead the small town to outlaw dancing. They changed the circumstance for Ren's arrival. This time around, he's from Boston and his mother has died of leukemia. His uncle is an ally in Ren's push to change the town's dancing laws. You don't see Ariel's crazy highway stunt from the original, but she does show a wild side. My grade is a C+.
The remake is PG-13, for teen drug and alcohol use, language, sexual content and violence.
What you should know should you take your kids:
-A fiery crash is shown, resulting in the death of several teens.
-A character loses her virginity. Some kissing/touching is shown before she begins to unbutton her top and asks for the door to be closed.
-Other sexual situations include some close, sexy dancing; joking about a hookup with two women; a character making advances on another.
-A character is given marijuana, which is refused. Several underage characters are shown drinking and smoking.
-Characters play a game of chicken that leads to several vehicle crashing.
-Several characters get into fist fights. One character beats his girlfriend.
Some things to discuss:
-If you come across a law you feel is unfair, what can you do about it? Would you do something about it?
-Willard finally learns to dance. Is there something you've been afraid to try because you thought you couldn't do it? Share your story.
-What would you do if your friends wanted to do something (such as the chicken game) where someone could get hurt? Do you feel there is a lot of pressure to do crazy things even when you know they are wrong?
-Do you feel that the movie accurately relationships between teen guys and girls? Explain.
-A character makes up a story about a sexual encounter and jokes about it later. Can you tell when someone is exaggerating a story? Why do you think they do it? How does it make you feel?
-Why do you think teens and parents think so differently? Do you ever wonder what your parents/rulemakers were like as teens?
Cheers!
I was unable to make any of the screenings, so I barely got to see it this weekend with my daughter, one of her BFFs (both in sixth grade) and her mom. Both of us had our daughters watch the original first. And interestingly, they liked the original better. My daughter said it's because it was funnier. Guess she liked Chris Penn's version of Willard better.
Still, they laughed and danced in their seats watching the remake (featuring Kenny Wormald and Julianne Hough), which follows the original storyline closely: new kid comes to town, can't understand why dancing is outlawed and tried to get the town to agree to put on a senior prom. Some changes include showing the deathly crash that lead the small town to outlaw dancing. They changed the circumstance for Ren's arrival. This time around, he's from Boston and his mother has died of leukemia. His uncle is an ally in Ren's push to change the town's dancing laws. You don't see Ariel's crazy highway stunt from the original, but she does show a wild side. My grade is a C+.
The remake is PG-13, for teen drug and alcohol use, language, sexual content and violence.
What you should know should you take your kids:
-A fiery crash is shown, resulting in the death of several teens.
-A character loses her virginity. Some kissing/touching is shown before she begins to unbutton her top and asks for the door to be closed.
-Other sexual situations include some close, sexy dancing; joking about a hookup with two women; a character making advances on another.
-A character is given marijuana, which is refused. Several underage characters are shown drinking and smoking.
-Characters play a game of chicken that leads to several vehicle crashing.
-Several characters get into fist fights. One character beats his girlfriend.
Some things to discuss:
-If you come across a law you feel is unfair, what can you do about it? Would you do something about it?
-Willard finally learns to dance. Is there something you've been afraid to try because you thought you couldn't do it? Share your story.
-What would you do if your friends wanted to do something (such as the chicken game) where someone could get hurt? Do you feel there is a lot of pressure to do crazy things even when you know they are wrong?
-Do you feel that the movie accurately relationships between teen guys and girls? Explain.
-A character makes up a story about a sexual encounter and jokes about it later. Can you tell when someone is exaggerating a story? Why do you think they do it? How does it make you feel?
-Why do you think teens and parents think so differently? Do you ever wonder what your parents/rulemakers were like as teens?
Cheers!
Saturday, October 29, 2011
"In Time" not worth my time
"In Time" sounded like it could be a really good action thriller. The premise is no one ages past 25, but your clock is then set to expire in a year. The thing is, your clock is you currency. So your time could be up much quicker than a year, depending on how you spend it. The rich seem to have an unlimited clock. The poor quickly die off. It's survival of the fittest. Of course, a hero emerges who is out to give time to the masses.
Sadly, this date-night movie contender made me want to look at my non-existent watch. The characters weren't engaging. They were flat. And the action...the race to get time, give time, was a yawn and super predictable. I don't recall my heart pumping once. Certain elements of the plot were never really explained. Hello, seriously only one gang of time stealers? What's with the mysterious voices behind the make that tells how much time each time zone has? My grade: D+. My husband liked it a little more than I did. He gave it a C.
It's rated PG-13 for violence, some sexuality, partial nudity and language. I'm thinking my 14-year-old son would enjoy it more than me, though he may be disappointed by the lack of explosions. I don't think he'll care about the plot.
Things you should know should you decide to bring your kids:
-A man commits suicide. No blood is shown.
-People fall over and die when their time is up. One scene is particularly sad because a loved one dies in the other's arms.
-Lots of shootings and violence as thugs try to steal time, though little blood is shown.
-A prostitute tries getting customers.
-Two characters go for a skinny dip and a bare bottom is shown.
-Two characters play strip poker and make out (no sex is shown).
-Characters are drinking at the bar and casino.
-Several bad words are used in anger/fear, including the F-word.
Things to discuss:
How do you make the most of your time?
What kind of disadvantages do lower-income community have when compared to affluent communities?
Would you ever risk your reputation/wealth to help others in need?
How do you imagine the future? Will time be very important then?
Cheers!
Sadly, this date-night movie contender made me want to look at my non-existent watch. The characters weren't engaging. They were flat. And the action...the race to get time, give time, was a yawn and super predictable. I don't recall my heart pumping once. Certain elements of the plot were never really explained. Hello, seriously only one gang of time stealers? What's with the mysterious voices behind the make that tells how much time each time zone has? My grade: D+. My husband liked it a little more than I did. He gave it a C.
It's rated PG-13 for violence, some sexuality, partial nudity and language. I'm thinking my 14-year-old son would enjoy it more than me, though he may be disappointed by the lack of explosions. I don't think he'll care about the plot.
Things you should know should you decide to bring your kids:
-A man commits suicide. No blood is shown.
-People fall over and die when their time is up. One scene is particularly sad because a loved one dies in the other's arms.
-Lots of shootings and violence as thugs try to steal time, though little blood is shown.
-A prostitute tries getting customers.
-Two characters go for a skinny dip and a bare bottom is shown.
-Two characters play strip poker and make out (no sex is shown).
-Characters are drinking at the bar and casino.
-Several bad words are used in anger/fear, including the F-word.
Things to discuss:
How do you make the most of your time?
What kind of disadvantages do lower-income community have when compared to affluent communities?
Would you ever risk your reputation/wealth to help others in need?
How do you imagine the future? Will time be very important then?
Cheers!
Friday, October 28, 2011
Loving "Puss in Boots"
Honestly, I worried about seeing this one. Would "Puss in Boots" make me laugh or cringe. Not all the Shrek movies were great. I couldn't even finish watching the third one.
I came into the theater thinking the best of the movie was in the trailer. I left nicely surprised. I couldn't say it was the best animated movie this year, but it is good. My grade is a B+. My kids liked it too, trying to convince me I should give it an A-.
This animated film looks at Puss in Boots' beginning as an orphan kitty who transforms into a kitty-loving, justice-seeking, sword-wielding rebel. Antonio Banderas reprises his role voicing Puss. He's joined by Salma Hayek as Kitty Softpaws and Zach Galifianakis as Humpty "Alexander" Dumpty.
The film starts with Puss seeking some magic beans from the villainous husband and wife Jack and Jill (voiced by Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris) that will lead him to the golden egg-laying goose. Happens another also seeks those beans leading to the true treasure, messing with Puss's plans. You quickly learn an old-friend-turned-enemy is behind that effort. You learn much of Puss's past, such as how he went from hero to outlaw, via flashbacks. It's one adventure after the other, so the movie moves at a nice clip. It's filled with plenty of jokes, some specifically for the adults. I won't share the end, but many of you will be able to guess. Still, it's a fun ride.
Is there too much adult innuendo? Well, that depends on your tolerance and how much your kids pick up. Some samples:
-Humpty "Alexander" Dumpty: "You got any idea what they do to eggs in prison? I'll tell you this, it ain't over easy."
-Puss in Boots (after being arrested, catnip is found in his boot): "That's for my glaucoma."
-Kitty Softpaws, while she whips her tail around Puss: "Just think of all the trouble we can into, the two of us together."
None are necessarily bad in my opinion, but they could open up conversations...what did Humpty mean about prison? Glaucoma, why did he say that?
Some topics to discuss: betraying friends, making good decisions, having dreams, helping your community, stealing/cheating/lying, revenge, etc.
My overall opinion is this is fine for most ages. Just know you may be asked to explain stuff, as you probably did in other Shrek movies. It's up to you how you decide to explain it. :)
Cheers!
I came into the theater thinking the best of the movie was in the trailer. I left nicely surprised. I couldn't say it was the best animated movie this year, but it is good. My grade is a B+. My kids liked it too, trying to convince me I should give it an A-.
This animated film looks at Puss in Boots' beginning as an orphan kitty who transforms into a kitty-loving, justice-seeking, sword-wielding rebel. Antonio Banderas reprises his role voicing Puss. He's joined by Salma Hayek as Kitty Softpaws and Zach Galifianakis as Humpty "Alexander" Dumpty.
The film starts with Puss seeking some magic beans from the villainous husband and wife Jack and Jill (voiced by Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris) that will lead him to the golden egg-laying goose. Happens another also seeks those beans leading to the true treasure, messing with Puss's plans. You quickly learn an old-friend-turned-enemy is behind that effort. You learn much of Puss's past, such as how he went from hero to outlaw, via flashbacks. It's one adventure after the other, so the movie moves at a nice clip. It's filled with plenty of jokes, some specifically for the adults. I won't share the end, but many of you will be able to guess. Still, it's a fun ride.
Is there too much adult innuendo? Well, that depends on your tolerance and how much your kids pick up. Some samples:
-Humpty "Alexander" Dumpty: "You got any idea what they do to eggs in prison? I'll tell you this, it ain't over easy."
-Puss in Boots (after being arrested, catnip is found in his boot): "That's for my glaucoma."
-Kitty Softpaws, while she whips her tail around Puss: "Just think of all the trouble we can into, the two of us together."
None are necessarily bad in my opinion, but they could open up conversations...what did Humpty mean about prison? Glaucoma, why did he say that?
Some topics to discuss: betraying friends, making good decisions, having dreams, helping your community, stealing/cheating/lying, revenge, etc.
My overall opinion is this is fine for most ages. Just know you may be asked to explain stuff, as you probably did in other Shrek movies. It's up to you how you decide to explain it. :)
Cheers!
Friday, September 30, 2011
What you need to know about "What's Your Number?"
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!
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 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!
Thursday, August 18, 2011
What you need to know about "Attack the Block"
"Attack the Block" comes to the Harkins Theatre at Tempe Marketplace this weekend. Note: The trailer that I've linked is filled with language.
The film is getting a lot of critical buzz. The Arizona Republic gave it 4 stars. I'm not that generous, but it was a decent low-budget sci-fi horror flick with a few laugh-out-loud moments. The social commentary, as pointed out in the AZ Republic review is a bit over the top. But the entire movie is, as this genre usually is.
"Attack the Block" is probably going to be something your teen boys will want to see since it's about teen inner-city boys kicking alien butt. Maybe some of your daughters will want to see it to hang with the guys. It's R-rated, so the question is will they get in? If they do, here's what you need to know:
There is lots of graphic language. The F-word is common, but so are many others. These are tough inner-city kids living in London. They will school you in language. Even the little kids spew out some choice words. As a mom, you'll want to wash their mouths out.
Drugs are everywhere. There's the big room where pot is grown. The teens and others are buying and smoking it and getting high. A thug gives one of the teens drugs to sell.
It's a horror flick, so there is gore and a few attack scenes that will make you jump. It's not super intense in my opinion. You know when an attack will take place. But blood squirts out a plenty.
Besides the kids attacking aliens and aliens attacking a variety of characters, there is gun violence, fires, vehicles tossed and explosions. A drug thug attempts to kill the teens a few times for destroying his property.
A woman at the beginning is mugged. Not so scary after everything else that happens. But it's the most realistic scary situation in the movie.
Only you know what is best for your kid. My personal feeling is this is something most 15 year olds can take, should you allow it. I'd add a discussion about violence, drugs and film fantasy after seeing it. Yes, roll your eyes! I'm just that way. Here's a link to Common Sense Media's review, which has the movie as a 16 and older flick. There are a few decent discussion questions, too.
I'm not comfortable letting my 14 year old see this kind of film yet. I'm a mom and want to shelter my kid a little longer.
Cheers!
The film is getting a lot of critical buzz. The Arizona Republic gave it 4 stars. I'm not that generous, but it was a decent low-budget sci-fi horror flick with a few laugh-out-loud moments. The social commentary, as pointed out in the AZ Republic review is a bit over the top. But the entire movie is, as this genre usually is.
"Attack the Block" is probably going to be something your teen boys will want to see since it's about teen inner-city boys kicking alien butt. Maybe some of your daughters will want to see it to hang with the guys. It's R-rated, so the question is will they get in? If they do, here's what you need to know:
There is lots of graphic language. The F-word is common, but so are many others. These are tough inner-city kids living in London. They will school you in language. Even the little kids spew out some choice words. As a mom, you'll want to wash their mouths out.
Drugs are everywhere. There's the big room where pot is grown. The teens and others are buying and smoking it and getting high. A thug gives one of the teens drugs to sell.
It's a horror flick, so there is gore and a few attack scenes that will make you jump. It's not super intense in my opinion. You know when an attack will take place. But blood squirts out a plenty.
Besides the kids attacking aliens and aliens attacking a variety of characters, there is gun violence, fires, vehicles tossed and explosions. A drug thug attempts to kill the teens a few times for destroying his property.
A woman at the beginning is mugged. Not so scary after everything else that happens. But it's the most realistic scary situation in the movie.
Only you know what is best for your kid. My personal feeling is this is something most 15 year olds can take, should you allow it. I'd add a discussion about violence, drugs and film fantasy after seeing it. Yes, roll your eyes! I'm just that way. Here's a link to Common Sense Media's review, which has the movie as a 16 and older flick. There are a few decent discussion questions, too.
I'm not comfortable letting my 14 year old see this kind of film yet. I'm a mom and want to shelter my kid a little longer.
Cheers!
Monday, July 11, 2011
Hoping 'Deathly Hallows' is worth the wait
I didn't become a Harry Potter fan until this year. I have to thank my son for that.
I've seen the movies, and they've been enjoyable. I particularly liked the first and third ones. But if it weren't for AR (Accelerated Reader) points and the desire to help my son with reading strategies, I would have never cracked the books. AR is a program to promote reading comprehension and was part of my son's Language Arts grade.
Why would I care for a boy wizard who escaped a death curse by a power-hungry, dark wizard who seeks purity in magical families? But after my son did poorly on his first test, I decided to read J.K. Rowling's books only to help my son focus on its details. And I was hooked.
Despite altered story lines in the movies, I've enjoyed re-watching the films - some more than others. I'm hoping the final fight scene doesn't drag out too much, but my guess is it will. Gotta keep those who haven't read the book glued to the visual effects, right? Here's hoping Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 will do justice to the mesmerizing story of Severus Snape and Albus Dumbledore. Can't wait to find out.
I've seen the movies, and they've been enjoyable. I particularly liked the first and third ones. But if it weren't for AR (Accelerated Reader) points and the desire to help my son with reading strategies, I would have never cracked the books. AR is a program to promote reading comprehension and was part of my son's Language Arts grade.
Why would I care for a boy wizard who escaped a death curse by a power-hungry, dark wizard who seeks purity in magical families? But after my son did poorly on his first test, I decided to read J.K. Rowling's books only to help my son focus on its details. And I was hooked.
Despite altered story lines in the movies, I've enjoyed re-watching the films - some more than others. I'm hoping the final fight scene doesn't drag out too much, but my guess is it will. Gotta keep those who haven't read the book glued to the visual effects, right? Here's hoping Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 will do justice to the mesmerizing story of Severus Snape and Albus Dumbledore. Can't wait to find out.
Making time for "Horrible Bosses"
I've had my share of Ally McBeal moments. You know, when you fantasize about something totally crazy just to make an insane situation bearable. I've had a few surreal thoughts about work, too. Who hasn't?
So of course I was curious to see "Horrible Bosses," starring Jason Bateman, Charlie Day and Jason Sudeikis. It's one of those comedies that is totally unrealistic and crazy, but it's done well so you won't be thinking you wasted your time or money (unlike "Bad Teacher," which had me thinking I could have waited for the DVD and watched while cleaning house). I'm giving "Horrible Bosses" a thumbs up - a solid B. It works as a date-night movie - at the theater or eventually (for the more budget-minded) on DVD. Ladies, your guy will laugh and he won't complain about seeing Jennifer Aniston, either. You'll have fun, too, even if this is definitely male fantasy.
My husband points out that I generally love any movie with Jason Bateman. True. But I also loved Jennifer Aniston for the first time since "The Good Girl." Love her being bad. And Charlie Day ("It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia") cracked me up as the whiny sexually harassed friend. Gotta remember to catch that show. Surprisingly, I was not annoyed by Jamie Foxx, who plays a murder consultant of sorts.
Essentially the movie is the story of three friends who joke around about murdering their annoying, horrible bosses who keep them from enjoying their jobs. One is a sexual predator, another is a philandering oaf and the last is a psychopath. And of course, nothing goes as planned. Obviously you have to suspend reality to enjoy the laughs because the story is just so unbelievable.
I laughed often while watching this totally insane movie, and it's been hard making me laugh lately. While this movie isn't as well done as "Bridesmaids," which that had me laughing so hard I cried, I found it fun.
"Horrible Bosses" (also starring Kevin Spacey and Colin Farrell) earns its R rating for explicit language and adult situations. Don't bring the kids, as it'll annoy everyone in the theater. You're better off with a sitter or sending your children to the in-theater daycare. Besides, do you really want to answer a ton of embarrassing questions? Or want to blush while your kids see some explicit & crazy scenes? I say no.
Cheers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)