"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!
Saturday, October 29, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)