Category Archives: Movie Review

Movie Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (3D 48fps Update!)

Posted on by
1

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Two weeks ago I saw “The Hobbit” with friends in traditional 2D, and yesterday I went to the theaters again with my family–but this time in 3D high frame rate. You can check out my original review, but here’s a few additional thoughts on the differences between the versions:

He may not have wanted to start “The Hobbit,” but I’m glad he’s finishing it.

Only Peter Jackson could have made me care about 3D and high frame rate. The last 3D film I watched was “Spy Kids 3D: Game Over” over nine years ago. Even at 13-years-old, I knew that everything about that movie sucked. My mind lumped in the crappy technology with every other crappy element–plot, dialogue, character development, etc. Thus, despite the Elijah Wood cameo in “Spy Kids,” I never felt inclined to see another 3D film.

That is, until I started hearing about the revolutionary advances that Jackson’s team was making with “The Hobbit.” I was intrigued watching behind-the-scenes footage of the overly vibrant sets and costumes, and I decided that if anyone was going to make me fall in love with 48fps, it would be the director that made my favorite story come to life.

Rivendell never looked so breathtaking!

The technology is worth the hype. To my pleasant surprise, 3D glasses aren’t made with red and blue lenses anymore! Why didn’t I let it sink in that a LOT has happened with 3D technology in nine years? Mea culpa. I guess that I put off trying the experience out again for so long because of the fact that I wore glasses, and I didn’t feel like wearing another pair over my own. It’s been almost a year since my LASIK surgery, and it certainly makes watching something in 3D more enjoyable. (If only the frames actually fit people’s faces! One disadvantage was that mine kept slipping down my nose.)

Despite the ill fit, I was blown away by the differences in visual effects. From the dizzying effect as the dwarves escaped the goblins in the mountain to the fluttering of every feather of the eagles, the high frame rate made everything feel so real. I’ve had issues with certain films on Blu-Ray players, for example, because it’s like watching a poorly lit soap opera, but seeing “The Hobbit” again was like looking through a window. If you’re worried about 48fps making things too crisp and losing the fantasy vibe, I give you permission to be relieved!

The “Good Morning” scene alone is enough to make a fan giddy!

Ultimately, your opinion will not change, only deepen. I’ve skimmed the negative reviews that litter the Internet, including those at Rotten Tomatoes and Slate. I’ve come to the conclusion that the advanced technology will, in the end, not make that much of a difference in how you view “The Hobbit.” If you’re like me, and absolutely loved the previous trilogy with every fiber of your being, then the prequels will be worthy of your admiration. Nothing compares to LOTR, but my geeky friends and I were happy campers.

That being said, if you’re some Michael Bay fanboy who prefers boobs and explosions, then a three-hour fantasy epic will never win you over, no matter how innovative. Most of the complaints came from critics who never cared much for Tolkien or had never read his books. (Slate’s Dana Stevens even admitted that she resisted any literature that contained wizards. You’re telling me you couldn’t find an actual fan on your staff? Next!)

Conflict of interests aside, I’ll respect a movie adaptation review so much more if the critic read the book first. I’m not saying it should be required (because goodness knows I haven’t always had the time to squeeze the novel in before my theater excursion), but fans of “The Hobbit” will appreciate criticism from someone who’s familiar with Middle-earth versus someone who whines about all the singing.

So what’s your take? Anyone seen both versions of “The Hobbit?” Tell me what you thought in the comments!

Movie Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Posted on by
1

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

I thought that I would just start out by saying this: For those of you who complained about “The Hobbit” being too long of a film, I have these three points:

1. Your attention span needs work, and I pity your inability to put down your phone long enough to recognize cinematic wonder.

2. You clearly have not paid attention to Peter Jackson’s body of work, because otherwise you would not be surprised by its length.

3. After waiting nine years to escape into Tolkien’s universe on-screen again, I left that theater wanting so much more. Only three hours of magic after over 78,000 hours of waiting?! If you whined even the teeniest bit, you are not a fan, and I don’t know why you even went.

As Twitter would add, #SorryNotSorry.

Ok, with that rant out of the way, I know that my awesome readers will be glad to hear that “The Hobbit” was well worth the wait! I’ll try not to give too much away if you haven’t seen it yet, but considering that the film has already made approx. $85 million dollars this weekend, breaking the December opening weekend record, chances are you’ve made a trip to your local theater.

The version I saw was the basic 2D, 24fps, but I’ll be checking it out again in 3D, 48fps, over the holidays, so I’ll make sure to provide an update of the visual differences. That being said, even though I didn’t see the film as it was intended to be seen, it’s still great eye candy. The fact that those landscapes actually exist on our planet still boggles my mind–and makes me want to book a flight to New Zealand, stat.

And speaking of eye candy, let me have a fangirl moment for a second. When “The Fellowship” was released, I was 11 years old, but seeing Orlando Bloom as Legolas on screen for the first time probably incited early puberty for many girls like myself. Never will elves be of the Keebler variety in my mind again.

Now I was under the impression that Legolas would make a cameo in “An Unexpected Journey,” but alas, we’ll all have to wait for “There and Back Again.” Although other elves, such as Elrond and Galadriel appear in their immortal glory, I went into the dwarf-centric film thinking that the odds of a character making me melt like before were nil.

That is, until this guy showed up.

Hello there, indeed...

Hello there, indeed…

When Kili barged into Bilbo’s hobbit hole, both the girl sitting next to me and I blurted out, “Hellllloooo,” as if to say, “Well, aren’t you a sight for sore eyes among a group of prosthetic noses and braided beards?” We promptly sat back, knowing this  movie just tipped into amazeballs territory.

I sincerely did not pay much attention to the casting, nor to any information, since I hate feeling like I’ve seen everything about a film before it’s hit theaters. I recall vaguely my mother mentioning this young Aragorn lookalike, but I’m glad my memory escaped me because it’s nice being pleasantly surprised.

(By the way, Kili’s played by a relatively unknown Irish actor named Aidan Turner. After a quick glance at his IMDb profile, clearly there’s an episode of “The Tudors” I need to rewatch.)

Ok, ok, I’ll stop. Angry rants and fangirl rambling, what has become of Book Club Babe? Apologies, moving right along…

What else can I add? The soundtrack was phenomenal, a wonderful balance between new and familiar. Not to mention, fans will enjoy the dwarf drinking song, which showcases Tolkien’s whimsy. The entire cast’s acting was excellent, from Martin Freeman’s reluctant bravery as Bilbo to Richard Armitage’s thirst for vengeance as Thorin.

And I don’t think an audience has been so excited to see a villain as we were when Gollum slinked in. There’s a reason Andy Serkis (who is part-Armenian, don’t ya know?) is king of motion-capture performance art. He was simply brilliant, and the riddle scene was everything I wanted and more.

I won’t provide a list of differences between the book and movie, but be aware that creative license is taken when emphasizing parts downplayed by Tolkien, such as the prominence of The White Council, the Necromancer, and even Radagast the Brown. Much of these changes I believe are to the viewer’s benefit, since Jackson pieces together information explained in The Silmarillion and the Appendices that otherwise would not be apparent since The Hobbit was told from Bilbo’s perspective.

So re-read the novel if you can, and make your own conclusions about this adaptation. Although nothing compares to the LOTR trilogy, Jackson follows through with another hit. Highly, highly recommended!

Movie Review: “The Perks of Being a Wallflower”

Posted on by
5

Image copyrighted by Lionsgate

I’m sure you guys were dying to hear my thoughts on this movie, and I appreciate your patience! I was out of town for a business trip, but it sure feels good to blog. I’ve almost reached 20,000 overall views, so I’m psyched to meet that milestone!

“The Perks of Being a Wallflower” was released in limited theaters September 21, but more theaters have added the film to their line-up over time. Fortunately, it was directed, produced, and written by author Stephen Chbosky, so even if the movie’s not your cup of tea, at least Chbosky was in control of the creative process.

I was originally interested in the story because I was curious to see Emma Watson play someone other than Hermione Granger. She acted excellently as Sam, a misfit high school senior who suffers from a scandalous reputation. The film’s star Charlie (played by Logan Lerman) falls in love with Sam as he struggles with the deaths of his aunt and best friend. For a more complete summary of the novel, read my review here.

Moviegoers will recognize familiar faces, such as Paul Rudd, who plays Charlie’s supportive English teacher Mr. Anderson (known as Bill in the book). Kate Walsh, Dylan McDermott, and Melanie Lynskey play Charlie’s mother, father, and aunt, respectively.

But the real star, in my opinion, was Ezra Miller, who plays Sam’s step-brother Patrick. This role puts this relatively unknown 20-year-old actor in the spotlight, as his character faces hate and heartbreak after falling in love with the school’s quarterback. On the surface, he’s a witty wisecrack performing in Rocky Horror, but underneath he emotes the pain of a boy who just wants to be accepted for who he is. Miller has been open about his own queer identity with the press, and it’s nice to see this conversation about equality both on and off-screen.

My complaints about Charlie’s grating personality in the novel aren’t present in the film; because you’re not stuck in his head 24-7, you can better appreciate his emotional journey. I felt that the distance which usually creates a disconnect between mediums actually made the film more enjoyable than the book.

Granted, it is an “indie” character-driven story, full of teen angst and controversial social issues, so if you’d rather watch an action-packed thriller, I highly recommend “Looper” with Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. But if you want to witness some great acting from Hollywood’s rising stars and sink into the nostalgia of your youth, “Perks” has just enough–you guessed it, perks–to keep you entertained.

Movie Reviews: “My Week with Marilyn” and “Midnight in Paris”

Posted on by
3

This month I’ve watched a couple films with literary themes, and I’m finally getting around to letting you know what I think of them. Don’t worry, I’ve got two books to review in the near future, but let’s just say life has been throwing me so many curve-balls at once that they got put on the back-burner temporarily.

Image via Wikipedia

“My Week with Marilyn” (2011)

Rating: 4 out of 5

This British drama directed by Simon Curtis stars Michelle Williams as Marilyn Monroe and Eddie Redmayne as Colin Clark, a young man yearning to become a filmmaker who has the chance to work with Monroe on her movie, “The Prince and the Showgirl” in 1956. This film was adapted from the real Clark’s tell-all book, titled The Prince, The Showgirl and Me.

The movie follows Clark’s infatuation with Monroe, as she struggles to make her mark in the acting world. She is portrayed as very capricious, reflective and insightful one moment, hysterical and popping pills the next. Williams does an excellent job depicting Monroe’s constant need for validation, and her inner turmoil which causes her to incite so many extramarital affairs (as she is married to third husband, playwright Arthur Miller, at the time).

Because of her fickle nature, Clark gets his heart broken and learns a valuable lesson about love. The movie’s production ends, and so does their short relationship. Actress Emma Watson is adorable playing a much more realistic love interest for Clark: It must have been hard watching men fall to the feet of Monroe on a daily basis!

And I think that’s the best part about this film. Even though I am not obsessed with Monroe like some young women, because I refuse to ignore her dark side, this movie highlights that juxtaposition between admired actress and disturbed young woman. She may have a screw loose at times, but you fall in love with her anyways, just like Clark.

Even if you’re not a Monroe fan, you’ll enjoy this film. (Rotten Tomatoes rating: 84%)

Image via Wikipedia

“Midnight in Paris” (2011)

Rating: 3 out of 5

I was more skeptical watching this film, because I don’t really like Woody Allen, but this romantic comedy directed by him wasn’t terrible. I liked the premise, which follows American Gil Pender (played by Owen Wilson) as he spends a vacation with his fiancee (Rachel McAdams) in Paris.

Pender’s a screenwriter who glorifies Paris in the 1920s, where literary expatriates reigned supreme. Then, after getting drunk one midnight, he finds himself actually in the ’20s meeting the same authors and artists he admires. It was fun watching Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Picasso, and others shown on screen, and all the actors did a great job with their characters.

I just wish that I could’ve liked Pender more. Most of the time he comes off obnoxious, and I feel his fiancee’s frustration. It’s clear from the beginning that they’re very incompatible. However, I enjoyed Allen’s message that we shouldn’t dream of a “Golden Age,” because living in the past takes away from the present moment. And the people and places you may consider perfect might actually yearn for an even earlier time.

Again, Woody Allen’s not my cup of tea, but the film got rave reviews, so if you can’t get enough of this literary era, check it out for yourself (Rotten Tomatoes rating: 93%)

Movie Review: Twilight: Breaking Dawn, Pt. 1

Posted on by
3

Rating: 1 out of 5

I’m about half-way done with Kafka’s The Trial, which keeps getting stranger and stranger. The gist of the story is that the protagonist has been accused of a crime that he doesn’t even know if he committed, since no one will tell him any details of his case. At one point, he complains about the incompetency of a few officials, only to find them being tortured while at work.

You know what else was torture? Having to watch the latest Twilight film.

Earlier this month, my younger brother, his girlfriend, and I were messing around and playing games when we decided to watch the movie, ironically, of course. We’d have a laugh making fun of the whole thing, and then I’d be able to blog about it for all of you.

I just want to say that I hope you’re grateful that I watched this horrendous movie, so you don’t have to. I apologize for the review being so late, since it debuted last November, but how can you muster up enthusiasm for a film that you know is going to suck?

I’m not insulting it because I hate Twilight. In fact, I read the series in 2007, the summer before my freshman year of college. I gobbled up the first three novels before Twilight’s adaptation even premiered, because I’m such a sucker for romance. This is embarrassing to reveal, but I also went to the midnight release of the fourth and final novel Breaking Dawn.

And that’s where my hatred of Twilight started. If you don’t know the story, let me sum it up for you: Bella is madly in love with vampire Edward and wants to consummate their relationship, but Edward, being the old-fashioned guy that he is, wants to wait until they’re married.

You mean to tell me you couldn’t make a better dress with this movie budget?

So at 18-years-old, Bella marries Edward, then they jet off together on a tropical honeymoon. They finally have sex, which is a rare feat between a human and vampire, because vampires normally kill their lovers due to their bloodlust.

And because she didn’t think she could get pregnant by a vampire, Bella didn’t concern herself with contraception. She becomes impregnated with a hybrid baby, which develops rapidly and is essentially destroying her from the inside out.

I hope you learned your lesson, Bella…

As if this story couldn’t get any more self-righteous, Bella and her vampire family fight about whether to abort the baby, but Bella decides to keep it and realizes that drinking blood helps the situation a bit. When she finally goes into labor (her father-in-law’s a doctor, conveniently), Edward is forced to turn her into a vampire before the baby breaks all her bones and kills her.

That’s where “Breaking Dawn, Pt. 1″ ends. Director Bill Condon decided to copy the “Harry Potter” series and divide the last installment into two films, the second of which will be released this November. Thus, I gave this movie only one star not just because it sucked, but because the book also sucked.

I’ll admit that I’m a socially liberal feminist, so I did not appreciate how author Stephenie Meyer’s Mormonism influenced Breaking Dawn. I felt like it was a poorly-written glorification of teen marriage and parenthood. Instead of throwing her whole life away for a guy, why couldn’t Bella go to college, find a steady job, and meet someone who doesn’t have anger and control issues? That wouldn’t be nearly as popular with the Twihards, but I question the values supported in this series and their effects of these impressionable fangirls.

Besides the dangerous piety, the movie was just plain boring. There was absolutely no reason to split this story up, because there simply wasn’t enough action to warrant it. This film drew out the wedding, honeymoon, and pregnancy to excessive lengths–two hours to be exact. I’m afraid that all movie adaptations of books will imitate the “Harry Potter” strategy (“The Hunger Games” is already on board with the idea), whether it’s needed or not. Hollywood should care less about profits and more about creating an engaging finale.

All in all, “Breaking Dawn, Pt. 1″ was dull, slow, cheesy, melodramatic, and accompanied by an obnoxiously loud and annoying soundtrack. It deserves its 25% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Not to mention, I watched it after the Kristen Stewart cheating scandal broke it, so her romance with her co-star/now-ex-boyfriend Robert Pattinson was not very convincing. That’s not saying much, since Stewart’s acting abilities were never convincing.

The only Stewart that Robert Pattinson needs!

I’m sure that I’ll watch Pt. 2 when it comes out on DVD, just to be rid of this overrated series. It’s sad that I was such a huge supporter of the books before the bandwagon exploded, but this last novel completely ruined the saga for me.

However, there is a silver lining. Meyer must be aware of how much Breaking Dawn sucked, because she’s changed the ending for the last movie. It’s going to be super awkward to watch Stewart and Pattinson make their rounds on the talk shows for publicity amidst their real-life drama, but who knows? Maybe their characters will be obliterated in some sort of freak accident.

Here’s to hoping, anyway.

Fireworks and Flappers and Gatsby, Oh My!

Posted on by
3

So the whole entertainment industry was a twitter (literally) yesterday about “The Great Gatsby” trailer. As a big Carey Mulligan fan, I was excited to see the first shots of her as Daisy Buchanan. But now that the trailer’s out, I feel conflicted. Take a look for yourself:

Obviously, Baz Luhrmann as director is going to split opinions. I’ve seen “Romeo + Juliet” and “Moulin Rouge!” and while I appreciate their cinematic style, it’s not my favorite cup of tea. But I understood that the glitz and glamour would be the main attraction of “The Great Gatsby,” especially given that the film will be shown in 3D. (Don’t worry, keep reading, because I’ll address that nonsense, too!)

This burlesque angle will attract a bigger audience, incorporating non-readers. The trailer was flashy and sexy, and I admit that the costumes and sets looked amazing. But the purist inside me is groaning.

I think this YouTube comment by user Evanm3 summed it up: “‘New York, 1922…’ [cue music by Kanye] Fail.” I mean, seriously? I can’t stand historical films with modern soundtracks (I’m looking at you, “A Knight’s Tale”). Even if the movie is excellent, the cognitive dissonance is hard to ignore.

I just feel that the last major adaptation of this novel, the 1974 version starring Robert Redford and Mia Farrow, suffered from excessive melodrama, and now this 2012 remake is making the same mistake. It seems like neither film has much acting cred, and I’m afraid the film will come off campy. Leo and Carey are capable of so much more, and I wasn’t feeling their empty, emotionless lines.

And let’s discuss this obsession with 3D, shall we? I’m a huge opponent of this Hollywood movement, because it prioritizes explosions and flinging food-stuffs over quality storylines and characters. But since 3D’s something that’s not going away, it needs to stay in crappy action movies like “Wrath of the Titans.” Step away from the book adaptations! Does “The Great Gatsby” need 3D? Absolutely not!  For once, why can’t 1922 be 1922, without all the added pomp and circumstance?

Of course, I still want to see this movie–I wouldn’t be a good book blogger if I didn’t! But I’m a bit warier now, and will be approaching the remake with more skepticism.

What do you guys think? Did the trailer turn you on or off? Share your thoughts!

Masterpiece Monday: Howl’s Moving Castle

Posted on by
4

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Today I’m bending the rules, because it’s the birthday of one of my best friends, Lily. Years ago, I recommended Diana Wynne Jones’ fantasy novel Howl’s Moving Castle to her, and now it’s one of her favorite stories. Although she currently lives in Tokyo and spends her free time reading in Japanese, I thought I would celebrate the book we shared together. I wouldn’t say it qualifies as a “masterpiece,” but it’s certainly an outstanding read.

Jones published her novel in 1986, and it tells the tale of Sophie Hatter, a young hat-maker who is cursed by the Witch of the Waste. After becoming displeased with Sophie’s hats, the witch turns her into an old woman.

Determined to break the curse, Sophie becomes the maid for the wizard Howl, a 28-year-old, self-centered, narcissistic man rumored to eat pretty girls’ hearts. Howl lives in his moving castle with his 15-year-old apprentice Michael and the fire demon Calcifer, who powers the place.

What makes Howl’s castle able to “move” is its magical entry, with a doorknob which has four dabs of paint to represent   its different locations. Howl’s mysterious past and many psuedonyms allow him to travel through this fantastical world relatively unnoticed, that is until he must face his own cowardice and help Sophie destroy the Witch of the Waste.

This is a unique love story as well, given that although Howl is aware of Sophie’s curse, she lives with him as an old woman. Howl even initially courts Sophie’s sister Lettie. Not to mention, it takes a while for Sophie to look past Howl’s vanity and messiness and find the good within. But while I won’t give away the whole plot, don’t worry, there’s a happily ever after!

L-R: Sophie, Howl, and Calcifer

Once you’ve read Howl’s Moving Castle, you should watch Hayao Miyazaki’s 2004 anime feature film of the same name. I’ve mentioned the movie before when I discussed my favorite literary vacation destinations, and it is really worth the watch.

There are vast differences between the book and film, the biggest being Miyazaki’s inclusion of supernatural creatures. The film also added the element of war, with Howl refusing to fight for pacifist reasons. And although Sophie is cursed in the movie, the witch devolves into a humorous, harmless character rather than the powerful sorceress she is in the book.

According to interviews, Miyazaki did not consult Jones, but allowed her a private viewing, after which she called the film “fantastic.” However, do not mistake Jones’ sequel to Howl’s Moving Castle, called Castle in the Air, for another Miyazaki movie called “Castle in the Sky.” The two are entirely unrelated.

So if you’re interested in experiencing a fun, magical tale of love and friendship, I highly recommend Howl’s Moving Castle. It’s a story that brings close friends even closer–so happy birthday, Lily!!!

Movie Review: The Hunger Games

Posted on by
11
The Hunger Games (film)

Image via Wikipedia

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Yes, I’m a bit shocked myself to be writing that high of a rating, but I was pleasantly surprised with this adaptation. After waiting in a relatively long line for a 10:30 a.m. showing, my dad and I watched the much-anticipated “The Hunger Games.” Clocking in at almost 2.5 hours, it certainly didn’t feel that long, since I was enthralled every second.

The cast did brilliantly, not overdoing their acting, but not behaving like robots either. Sure, Jennifer Lawrence has been criticized for her feminine curves, and while I was concerned when learning of the cast that their looks wouldn’t be realistic, I understand that it’s unethical to actually starve actors for their roles. Plus, don’t people realize she’s been nominated for an Oscar for “Winter’s Bone?” She does a great job as Katniss, and just because she’s got boobs and a butt doesn’t mean she’s too sexy for the role. So, I’d like to tell The New York Times to politely shut their face.

As for the setting, Panem looked fantastic. I loved the contrast between the ultra-modern Capitol and the rural districts. Those who haven’t read the books might find the flamboyant Capitol citizens a bit cheesy in their crazy outfits and makeup, but I’d also like to tell them to politely shut their faces. The movie was not made for you.

While the first scenes were great, from the heartbreaking Reaping to the tributes’ training, we all waited in suspense for the Games to begin. I found it very meta that we were just as excited as the Capitol to watch these kids kill each other. We are part of the problem, and Suzanne Collins is making an excellent point that our society is disturbingly obsessed with violence. Our reality TV culture has made us the least common denominator, and that need for voyeurism made me uncomfortable.

That being said, I still feel that the actual gore was diluted down too much, especially with Cato’s death. I kept thinking to myself as I read the scene, How are they going to show a boy get reduced to a skinless, meaty pulp? Well, they didn’t, of course. Should they have? I can understand that the producers did not want to lose most of their demographic with an “R” rating, but I feel pretty jipped as an adult. If I made the decisions, there would be two DVD versions–the theatrical version and an adult-only one that maintains the book’s level of brutality.

Overall, I was very pleased with the film, and I recommend it to any fan of the series. Perhaps if the filmmakers keep this up, I won’t be as upset watching “Mockingjay” as I was reading it. Well, one can hope, right? And as President Snow said, “Hope, it is the only thing stronger than fear.”

Movie Review: The Secret World of Arrietty

Posted on by
5

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Last night I celebrated the progress I made on my paper by watching the latest Studio Ghibli film “The Secret World of Arrietty.” Based on Mary Norton’s 1952 novel The Borrowers, it originally debuted in Japan in July 2010. My review will be on the English version, but will make references to the Japanese version.

The story stars Arrietty (voiced by Bridgit Mendler), a spunky, teenage Borrower who lives with her mother and father (voiced by the hilarious comedy duo Amy Poehler and Will Arnett). Borrowers are tiny people who reside in human homes and secretly take things that won’t be missed, such as sugar cubes and tissues.

Arrietty is excited for her first Borrowing expedition with her dad, but fails miserably when human boy Shawn (voiced by David Henrie) spots her. Shawn recently moved into the house to live with his great aunt Jessica and her maid Hara, because he suffers from a heart condition and his own parents are too busy with work to take care of him before his upcoming operation.

Shawn just wants to befriend Arrietty, but due to the danger of human sightings, she has to find a new home with her family. Danger indeed befalls them when Hara captures Arriety’s mother, and Shawn and Arrietty team up to save her. But will the Borrowers still have to move? Are there other Borrowers out there? And what will happen to Shawn’s declining health?

All these questions are answered in this visual wonderland. Studio Ghibi never disappoints, and the setting of the backyard is even more beautiful from the Borrowers’ perspective. The details are so crisp you can practically feel the leaves and taste the drops of dew. I also enjoy the relaxed pace of these movies; notice that Studio Ghibli never has to pander to attention-deficit kids with a bunch of high-speed chases and fart jokes.

I believe that any Studio Ghibli creation absolutely blows American animated films out of the water–which is why Disney wishes to profit from the company, often at the expense of cultural accuracy. I won’t go into my loathing for Disney’s treatment of Studio Ghibli, especially with Academy Award-winning “Spirited Away,” but feel free to look up their conniving tactics.

That being said, I appreciate Disney for allowing English speakers the opportunity to witness Studio Ghibli’s beauty time and time again. However, once the DVD is released, I’ll be watching with subtitles because oftentimes the English voice actors’ dialogue doesn’t quite translate. At one point, Hara (voiced by Carol Burnett) noticing that Arrietty’s mother has escaped her clutches, yells, “Where is my LADY?!!” much to awkward laughs of the audience. But who knows? Maybe she screams that exact sentence in Japanese too, but I hope not.

Also, Disney, answer me this: Why must you change all the Japanese names? Do you think the U.S. is too stupid to understand cultural differences? Naming Sho as Shawn, Haru as Hara, and Sadako as Jessica may seem harmless, but for true fans it’s just unnecessary and insulting to the Japanese filmmakers.

It’s no surprise that Rotten Tomatoes gave this film a 93% rating. It’s an excellent tale of friendship and courage told in magnificent animated detail. If it’s playing at a theater near you, do yourself a favor and go see it. I haven’t read the novel it adapted, but let’s face it: If a picture’s worth a thousand words, then this Studio Ghibli piece of art speaks volumes.

Movie Review: What’s Your Number?

Posted on by
Reply

Image via ComingSoon.net

Rating: 3 out of 5

Over the weekend, I saw “What’s Your Number?,” a movie based on Karyn Bosnak’s 2006 novel 20 Times a Lady. It stars Anna Faris (“The House Bunny,” the “Scary Movie” franchise) as Ally Darling, who reads in a magazine that the national average of sex partners for a woman is 10.5–almost half of her own record of 19.

The magazine also claims that women with over 20 partners usually never marry, so Ally’s determined to not sleep with anybody else until she’s found ‘The One.’ She decides the best way to do this is to revisit her 19 exes and see whether they’ve become husband material.

She enlists the help of Colin, played by Chris Evans (“Fantastic 4,” “Captain America”). Colin is her commitment-phobe neighbor who hides in her apartment whenever he needs to escape the morning after his one-night-stands. Using his father’s detective skills, he helps Ally track down her exes–of course, falling in love with her in the process.

Unsurprisingly, this movie was cliched, predictable, and often unrealistic. I knew that going in, so I can’t complain. This movie was definitely better than Faris’ “The House Bunny” and “Scary Movies,” but I understand that’s not saying much. I still find Faris funny, because even though the situations she gets into are downright embarrassing, she comes off witty and relatable.

Of course, the gratuitous shots of Chris Evan’s pecs and biceps make it easier to excuse this chick flick’s faults!

But what I liked most about this film is the conversation it sparks regarding society’s views on sex and the double standard between men and women who play the field. From what I’ve heard, the book it’s based on is partly autobiographical, and Bosnak was turned down many times for writing about a single woman with an above average number of notches on her bedpost.

Many publishers wanted the author to round the number down to 10 ‘boyfriends,’ as if the score was bad enough, but how she got there was even worse. I laughed at this trivial worrying, since the gals on “Sex and the City” easily rank into the dozens–and in Samantha’s case, hundreds. And they still manage to be role models to millions of female fans.

But I also cringed, because no one would even bat an eye over a man with 19 lovers. This notion that promiscuous men are ‘studs’ and women are ‘sluts’ needs to stop. As long as you’re being safe and are happy with your decisions, no one should shame you for your number.

Overall, the movie was funny yet forgetable, but the message was worth it: Be proud of who you are, and don’t waste your time with people who can’t be proud of you too.