Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Phoebe In Wonderland

Thus far with this blog, I've been writing about movies I've seen in the last few months. So recent enough that I haven't had to re-watch anything. Today, I ran out of fresh material. So...rather than venture out into the nasty rain or re-live a bad movie, I decided to watch a newer favourite. Enjoy!

Phoebe In Wonderland
Director- Daniel Barnz
Writer- Daniel Barnz
Top Billed Cast- Elle Fanning, Patricia Clarkson, & Felicity Huffman

This movie is about the very imaginative Phoebe Lichten and her struggle to decipher fact from fiction.


* Within the first 10 minutes of the film, you're already aware of one of the major themes (and no, I'm not talking about Alice in Wonderland): Felicity Huffman's resentment of her current living situation; trying to wear too many hats without complaints.

* I love the vibrancy of this movie, everything is vivid and eye catching but not in a gaudy or overwhelming way.

* Elle Fanning is such a brilliant little actress, I never once doubted her role. While, yes, I'll admit that for the majority of the film I was stuck on the "That's Dakota's little sister!" thing so that was a bit distracting, but overall I felt she did fantastic.

* Cinematography is really great in this movie. It's on the "artsy" side, but I think it goes with the flow of the film very well.

*  I loved Patricia Clarkson in this movie. Such passion behind her role.

* The acting, in general was pretty darn good. Were there some rough patches? Most certainly! But, the fact that the majority of this movie is carried by children (who, a lot of the time, have had very little on screen time) kind of makes those rough patches "ok".

* The bedroom scene with Phoebe and her mother makes me cry every time. That's right, ME, cry. I'm not sure what it is about that particular scene that moves me so, it's just so beautifully done.

* I love how frustrated Felicity Huffman's character gets when everybody tries to tell her that Phoebe isn't "normal". In her mind, if Phoebe isn't normal, than it must be her fault and that's not something she's ready to come to terms with. I think the progression of this realization is really nice.

* The score on this movie is very cohesive and enjoyable.


* Little classmates of Phoebe...unless you've read the given piece of audition material, you really can't know it word for word and you most definitely can't perform it with inflection and such mockingly-intense-feeling. This actually goes for Phoebe too.

* When do these kids get all this free time at school? No wonder graduation rates are so low these days, kids are left unattended for large portions of the day and are creating weird, aerial view houses.

*  For being SO raw and bloody, Phoebe's hands seem to heel overnight in some scenes. Continuity anyone? Anyone?

Now Mother..

This movie is rated PG-13. There is some mild cursing (there is 1 F work but it's pretty muffled) and one scene where sex is...discussed (if young girls talking about what they thought they read in a sex-ed book really counts as "discussing"). The main theme of the movie is diagnosing Phoebe, so be prepared to discuss the out come of that, though they do a very good job of that towards the end of the film.

I really like this movie. Could I pick it apart further and complain about other aspects of it? Yes, most definitely. I think what makes it such a good movie to me is the fact that though they took such an old story (Alice in Wonderland), it was done in such a way that it was completely new. Everybody felt so genuine and endearing that the small things (such as getting the syncing right during the music number...) are pushed into the corner. 4/5 stars from me.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

True Grit

Interesting movie this week. I thought for sure that I liked this one up until the very last scene. It's amazing how easy it is to go from "this is a pretty great movie" to "I can't believe I thought I liked that" for me. Kind of sad, but interesting none the less. 

For those that wonder "why does she keep watching these movies if she hates them so much?", well, I watch for the same reason as most people: Entertainment. What I find entertaining isn't the same as most people, I know, but it's still entertainment.

True Grit
Director- Ethan Coen & Joel Coen
Writer- Charles Portis (Novel), Ethan Coen, & Joel Coen
Top Billed Cast- Matt Damon, Jeff Bridges, & Hailee Steinfeld


* Hailee Steinfeld did a really nice job with what she was given. Her delivery was excellent and her character well developed. 

* The word usage was really nice and typical of a Coen script. It was insanely formal but with flow.

* Being the Out-West junky that I am, I really enjoyed the scenery and scale of a lot of the shots.


* Jeff Bridges...I can't understand you. Seriously, it was pretty much 1 out of every 3 words that I got. 

* This movie is set in the mid/late-1800s, right? Then why the heck are we spouting "I'm only 14..." every five seconds? At that time and age, one should be at the very least courting...if not married with 3 kids under tow. One most definitely should not still be in braids and shorter-hemmed skirts. I read the Little House books, I know how it works.

* I was really conflicted by the Matt Damon character. Was I supposed to admire his bravery? Feel sick to my stomach at his apparent walking-the-fine-line-of-pedophilia? Or just find him a joke all together?

* I'm not completely sure, but I think they might've employed the most out of shape horses in Hollywood. These are lawmen that we are told go allllll over the west in search of outlaws and yet, their horses have less muscle tone than your average trail steed? Right.

* Does NOBODY check continuity anymore? Cup moves an inch, I can understand that. Wisp of hair is moved, I get it. Horse & Girl are COMPLETELY dry after swimming across a river less than 60 seconds ago....that, I don't understand. 

* Apparently they spent so much on the poorly toned horses that they couldn't afford a proper graphics artist. SHOT..(2 seconds later) explosion. It looked like your average TV quality wound (Not even Grey's or CSI level, more like a Lifetime movie). 

* So, you're trapped in a deep hole and you can't wiggle your ankle free. To your left is a dead guy with a knife on his belt. What do you do? Pull the body over, grab the knife and go? Yeah, that would've been my choice too. Apparently not what Mattie Ross would do. Oh no, instead, she'd prefer to pull the body over, open the chest cavity...see some "hibernating" snakes, freak out, and use more energy than it would take to pull the knife out to shove said body down the hole. What a waste.

* Speaking of Mattie Ross....amazing how little "older" Mattie looked like younger Mattie. It can't be that difficult to find an actress that at least RESEMBLES your main character.

* My last (sort of) beef with this movie is the song choice for that very last scene. This whole movie we've listened to a pretty good score. And then, as the now one-armed, Mattie walks into the sunset over the picturesque knoll...we hear it. The BLASTING of "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms". I understand the context and the power of the song. It just did not fit in with the overall feel of the film.

Now Mother..

This movie is rated PG-13, mostly for violence and tense scenes. Most of the main characters smoke & drink and there is one scene of drunkenness. Viewer beware..

I give this movie 3/5 stars. Why so many when I obviously had a lot of issues with it? Well, I give it credit for making me think I liked it up until the very end.

I decided to only review one movie this week so you'll have to stayed tuned to see my thoughts on The Dilemma and whichever movie(s) I decided for Time-Warp Tuesday!

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

The Social Network & Flipped

Soooo many options today! Trying to decide which ones to post when was a process I never really considered before. Learn as you go, I suppose.

The Social Network
Director- David Fincher
Writers- Aaron Sorkin (Screenplay) & Ben Mezrich (Book)
Top Billed Cast- Jesse Eisenburg, Andrew Garfield, & Justin Timberlake

The story of Facebook. Honestly, I waited a while to see this movie and really wasn't sure if I was going to like it. There was a LOT of hype (still is!) and by such a wide range of people. If you haven't heard of this movie...not really sure how you even stumbled upon this blog but, in short, it's about the founder of Facebook (that website with all the people's faces and random excerpts from their day) and his struggle to create the site he felt should be created.


* Writing! I loved the speed of this script, I loved the dialogue, and I loved the delivery. It felt a little bit like the quick-wit and split-second humor Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel delivered in Gilmore Girls, it was good.

* Cinematography (finally spelled that right the first time I typed it!) was really neat. Great usage of the crane; why don't more directors/cinematographers utilize this piece of equipment? The shots were really to scale of the scenes. Well done.

* The score was really fitting. At first I wasn't sure if I was going to like it but it grew on me...so much so, that by the time I watched the Golden Globes, every time they played it, I got a little excited.

* Andrew Garfield is British? Exactly. Well, maybe technically, he was born here but he most definitely has a British accent and I give him MAJOR props for keeping his natural accent at bay!

* Props to Armie Hammer for adequately portraying both of his characters and giving them such individual traits that one almost had to look the movie up to be able to tell if the roles were really played by two people rather than just one.


* At first, I was really impressed with Jesse Eisenburg's acting, but then I heard several interviews and discovered that his natural manner of speaking is almost identical to his portrayal. It's not necessarily a "con" but I found it interesting in a negative way.

* In order to really enjoy this movie, you need to be able to keep up with a VERY fast moving plot with lots of flash-forwards/flash-backs. I liked the way they were done but for the average movie-goer, it might have been too fast paced.

* I found it interesting how the Winklevoss' were pushed into suing by their friend and yet...he wasn't involved in the suit? Fine friend...

Now Mother..

This movie is rated PG-13 and has several scenes involving alcohol consumption (excessive) and drug use. There is some "minor" cursing and some sexual situations but, over all, this movie is on the milder side. Viewer beware..

This movie left me glad that I had watched it. I'm not sure that it should've beat The King's Speech for "Best Picture" at The Globes (actually, I KNOW it shouldn't have), but it was one of the better movies I've seen lately. 3.5/5 stars on this one, I'm not feeling very generous at the moment.

Director-Rob Reiner
Writers- Rob Reiner, Andrew Scheinman, & Wendelin Van Draanen (novel)
Top Billed Cast- Madeline Carroll, Callan McAuliffe, & John Mahoney

Never heard of this movie? Yeah, I hadn't either until the other day and I was pleasantly surprised. It's the story of Juli Baker & Bryce Loski: two young (8th graders), across-the-street neighbors, who have completely opposite view points on life but, somehow, develop strong feelings for one another. 

The movie is set in the mid 1900s (I'm not sure if the exact year is ever stated) and is really a sweet story. On to the Ps & Cs!


* Consistency in character. If there's one thing I hate, it's when the casting agencies pick younger-versions of characters/actors that look/act/sound NOTHING like their older counter parts -cough-TrueGrit-cough-. But that wasn't the case here! Loved the younger versions and the older versions just the same.

* Madeline Carroll, who you might know from Swing Vote, did a really good job of giving her character a real range of emotions and depth. This story is barely a step up from a made for TV movie, don't get me wrong, but they definitely didn't skimp on this aspect.

* They had a well planned script and very little "down-time" story-wise. I appreciated that.


* I don't care how many ER episodes you've done, Anthony Edwards, you WAY overacted in this movie. His performance probably would've been great on a stage....but this wasn't on stage. This was in a movie. With cameras that can ZOOM. Utilize it. 

* Fake leaves in close-ups are not cool. I just don't get how people can "okay" fake foliage in scenes where the foliage is the entire POINT of the scene! Here I am, supposed to feel sorry for this character and the loss of "her" tree and all I can stare at, all I can think about, is how fake that plastic leaf looks blowing in the "breeze". Kind of loses you, doesn't it?

* I wasn't a huge fan of the voice over stuff...I'm pretty sure there was at least one time when they forgot to "flip" before changing voice overs which was confusing.

Now Mother..

This movie is rated PG. There's one scene where one could say that Mr. Loski had had too many drinks...but that's pretty much the only thing in there. Each set of parents do have at least on yelling match but it's really well handled and explained. Mr. Baker's brother is mentally challenged and there are a few "tense" sequences involving him, but, again, it's really well handled. Viewer beware..

Despite it not being the typical "best movie I've ever seen!", I really did enjoy it. Very cute and a very sweet story line with nice, fresh actors playing the leads. 3/5 stars. 

On Thursday I'll be reviewing True Grit & The Dilemma

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Theater Thursday

It's that time of the week: Theater Thursday! Today I'll be reviewing The Fighter & Country Strong. That's right people, I don't stick to one genre here...I'll watch almost anything.

The Fighter
Director: David O. Russell 
Based on the true story about the Ward family
Top Billed Cast: Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, & Amy Adams

Mickey Ward is an (almost) washed up fighter who's brother has taught him everything he knows. The story follows Mick as he struggles to make his final comeback and make peace with his family.


* Excellent acting...everyone in this film really went all the way for their roles. Christian Bale was transformed and Amy Adams definitely shed her Enchanted persona. The accents were very well done...not that I really know what a Bostonian should sound like, but I do know that everybody sounded the same and it was flowy & cohesive.

* Cinematography was really cool...it felt like you were in the moment. It wasn't all that epic, but neither was the movie. The shots fit with the times and they fit with the scale of the story.

* I thought the locations were really well scouted and planned out. I never once "doubted" that I was watching something from the 1980s (actors aside, of course).

* The sisters...oh the sisters. Every time these ladies came on screen, I cracked up. I'm not sure how intentional that was on the Casting Department's part but it made me happy. Such a rough looking group.


* The accents were great but some of the delivery was not. I understand the dilemma here, I do...do you go for the most accurate accents or do you go for what your audience can understand? I guess they chose accuracy.

* Though it was understandable, I felt that the movie was kind of slow. We go through so much with this family and it takes a LONG time to get to the "payoff".

Now Mother..

This movie is rated R and rightly so. I think Christian Bale was probably saying the F word in his sleep...pretty much every other word out of his mouth was some form of cuss word.

Strong language aside, this movie is about a fighter and is, therefore, full of violence. Most of the violence is within the confines of the sport, but it is pretty brutal at times.

Drug use is a prominent theme in this movie, Christian Bale's character spends most of the movie in a rather high state.

Finally, there is some sexuality in the movie so be prepared. It's nothing really graphic and really mild compared to some other films out there today.

Overall, the main thing to be prepared for is the language...if you feel the need to vomit every time you hear a four-letter word, you might not want to attempt this one. Especially not after dinner. Viewer beware..

For the most part, I really enjoyed this movie and I look forward to seeing what awards it receives. 3.5/5 stars

Country Strong
Director- Shana Feste
Writer- Shana Feste
Top Billed Cast- Gwyneth Paltrow, Garrett Hedlund, Leighton Meester, & Tim McGraw

What is this movie about? Well, early on in promotion, we were told it was the come back story of a country music singer. This is not really the case. Really, this is just the sappiest country song ever written...in movie form. Just so you know.


* The soundtrack is catchy. REALLY catchy.

* Tim McGraw did more acting than his previous films...I guess this is a pro?

* It was filmed in/around Nashville..even when it "wasn't". I enjoyed trying to figure out if I recognized any of the extras or locations used. Yea for local films!

* Gwyneth Paltrow did quite well at portraying drunk.


* First and foremost: Animal Cruelty. That's right, people, I went there. One simply can NOT raise a baby quail in a box with no air holes. It will die. Not to mention the fact that we never see them feeding this chick and it only gets limited amounts of sunlight. Oh, and my favorite part, leaving it in a bar and never letting the viewers know what becomes of it. Way to go people, way to go.

* Costumes... I know we live in Nashville, and I know this was a movie about a country singer..still where in Nashville can you walk into a bar (non-themed, of course) and find every ONE of its occupants wearing a plaid shirt. Where?

While we're on the subject of costumes, what in the world is up with Kelly Canter's concert choices? This isn't Katy Perry or Lady Gaga...this is a country music singer. It's really impractical for one to attempt to do a concert in a skirt that constantly needs to be pulled down...we all saw it, Gwyneth, it happened. Over and over and over again.

* Who was supposed to be in charge of watching this very "famous" country music super star? They sure did a crappy job. There was barely a scene where she was where she was supposed to be and only one scene that I can think of in which she was in the right place and of sound mind. Great job, wranglers, great job. You would think that if you keep having to pull the "recovering" alcoholic from bars that you might not let her off on her own so much. Guess I'm wrong there.

* Audio. I don't like concerts....why? Because you can't hear anything being said. You will not see me at the Justin Bieber movie for this very reason, among others. So, when half of your movie has a concert in the background and yet you put important dialog in the foreground it makes it difficult to hear and understand if you don't dim the music.

* The singing...or rather, Leighton Meester singing. I know they all did their own singing and props to them for that. My issue doesn't lie in the vocals, it's with the performances. Leighton did a poor job lip-syncing with feeling for the first half of the movie. You know how it goes: Record then lip sync/really sing but lightly during filming. It just looked like she was mouthing the words and didn't look at all like she was actually singing. I want you to trick me into forgetting that your voice has been digitally enhanced.

* Cinematography was really cheap and cheesy. I lost count of how many "ok and pull in close...tighten in on his/face...hold it right there" shots there were. It was a lot.

* I understand, again, that this is a movie about a country music SINGER...however, I really got tired of hearing the same songs over and over and over again. They didn't even vary between verse and chorus, it was literally the same lines of the same songs over and over again.

* This might be one of the poorest written movies I've seen in a long time...and I watch a LOT of cheesy movies. I'm not quite sure what about it made it so bad, it just was really weird. We were left with a lot of questions with the big one being: What on earth happened to the last 2 hours of my life?

Now Mother..

This movie is rated PG-13 and in the majority of the movie, the main character is very drunk. There is a lot of focus on infidelity and other sexual themes. Viewer beware..

Overall this movie was just laughable...and not in the right way. The story was just really odd and quite depressing. I felt like the one aspect of it that was resolved wasn't an aspect that I went in wanting to watch. I felt cheated and annoyed. Gwyneth Paltrow did well in her role, so I suppose that's the upside. It just wasn't the heartwarming story I went in thinking I would be watching. Definitely not on par with The Blindside (not that that movie was perfect, by any means). 2/5 stars..and that's being generous.

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Time-Warp Tuesdays!

Every Tuesday I'll be posting reviews of movies currently NOT in theaters. These films might be from last summer or might even be from 20+ years ago..thus the title: Time-Warp Tuesdays!

This week I'll be reviewing The Lovely Bones & Charlie St. Cloud. See the theme? Not, entirely, intentional.

The Lovely Bones
Director- Peter Jackson
Based on the novel by- Alice Sebold
Top Billed Cast- Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz, Susan Surandon, Stanley Tucci, & Saoirse Ronan.

This story is about the time between life and the after life and the imprint one leaves behind on those around. While the book follows this family for over a decade, the movie is only 136 minutes long so it doesn't even touch that length of time. 


* Stanley Tucci is amazing. He almost makes this movie worth it. His portrayal of a murderous pedophile is spot on...or rather, he is exactly what one would think of when thinking of a murderous pedophile. 

* Saoirse Ronan does a pretty good job of being lost and confused. She portrays innocent rather well and one does feel sorry for her predicament. 


* As you can probably tell by the short "pro" list...I have quite a few "issues" with this movie. Starting with the graphics. Peter Jackson fell short here. While the ideas were good, the execution was not. Most of the CGI scenes were cringe-worthy...total cheesefest.

* I feel that this movie was really confusing to those that haven't read the book. The book was definitely NOT one of my favorites, it really just drug on and on and ON. The movie, though  shorter for obvious reasons, left out some of the key elements that really make this story "work". One of the big things was the fact that Susie's sister, Lindsey, is pregnant at the end of the movie with no explanation as to how much time has passed. 

* Story line....You've been dead for years and the one chance you get to come back, to experience life again, you use to have weird out-of-but-in-random-girl's-body sex? Strange choice seeing as how you were JUST watching your sister get almost trapped by the murderous pedophile. Odd choice indeed.

* Rachel Weisz's character was really underdeveloped in the movie and only a tad bit less-so in the book. It was kind of a shame to waste such talent on this part...we really didn't get to see a lot of the struggle that she had. She felt closed off and unmoving when the role really could've given more. Maybe there just wasn't that much stretch in the writing. Sad day.

Now Mother..

* This movie is rated PG-13 and has INTENSE scenes with implied pedophilia, rape, and murder. Though we don't actually "see" anything, the filming style and delivery is cringe worthy. If a movie makes *my* stomach turn, it's probably pretty rough stuff. 

Bottom line: I didn't really enjoy this movie. I was really excited about it when I saw previews for it..I mean, hello! Peter Jackson + Stanley Tucci + Rachel Weisz + Mark Wahlberg = Instant Classic! No? No. That being said, I do own it...it's still in its original packaging...but I do have it sitting on my shelf. I gave this movie 2.5/5 stars. Blarg.

Charlie St. Cloud
Director- Burr Steers
Based on the novel by- Ben Sherwood
Top Billed Cast- Zac Efron, Charlie Tahan, Amanda Crew, & Kim Basinger

This story follows Charlie St. Cloud as he deals with the sudden death of his little brother. 


* Charlie Tahan is adorable and I thought he did well with what he was given. 

* This movie was pretty; I liked the choice of colors and sets for the most part. 


Honestly, I hated just about everything about this movie. 

*In the book, within the first few paragraphs, the author describes Charlie St. Cloud. He makes sure, throughout the entire story, that the readers are very aware of the fact that Charlie has BROWN eyes.....not green, not hazel, not grey, and DEFINITELY not BLUE. With all the technical advances and all of Hollywood's best make-up artists at their disposal...why, WHY?? could somebody not give Mr. Efron some colored contacts? Is it really that difficult? Oh, I understand creative license and I get that changing details can make a story more "the director's" but, really? Something as stressed in the book couldn't possibly mean more, changed, in the movie. Just don't get it.

* The magic that was "death" in the book lost a LOT in interpretation. In the book, Sam could go anywhere and do anything during the day time...he often caused mischief throughout the town while Charlie was busy at work. It seems that in the movie they were trying to make Sunset this uber-magical time for the brothers when, in the end, it really just made their time too shortened. I mean, how much bonding can one do from 6-6:30? Not a lot. 

Now Mother..

This movie is rated PG-13 and there is a sex scene, drinking, and a not-so-graphic car crash. There is a LOT of talk of death and the after-life, so be prepared to discuss your views on the subject. 

It's not really that there were that many things that bugged me about this movie, I think it's more that it was SO different from the book that got to me. I thought that most of the acting was pretty good and the writing wasn't horrible. Had I not read the book, it might be a movie that I watch in theaters then, months later, secretly rent. It was just really disappointing to me and I gave it 2.5/5 stars as well.

Neither one of these movies met my expectations and goes to show that it takes a lot to "wow" me. Ask any of my friends, I really wanted to like both of these movies...didn't matter.

Stay tuned for Theater Thursday, my reviews on the latest films!

Thursday, January 6, 2011

The Beginning & The King's Speech

So this is it. Blog #1. I suppose I'll start with explaining that I technically have no idea what I'm talking about...I didn't go to a fancy film school (or any film school at all), I'm not an actress, I'm no director, and I'm definitely NOT a writer.

So, what gives me the right to post my views on what's out and what shouldn't have even been thought up? Well, nothing really. But I figure, this way, instead of boring my friends and those around me with my latest movie rantings, now I can just say "read my blog" and that should suffice.

To start, I'll be "reviewing" a movie I saw just last night:

The King's Speech
Director- Tom Hooper
Writer- David Seidler 
Top Billed Cast- Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter

This movie is really well done, in my opinion (of course it's my opinion..it's my blog). Beautifully shot and wonderfully acted. I'll go over the Pros and Cons for you..


* Cinematography is brilliant. It really makes one FEEL the emotions of the scene, especially in the shots leading up to, and following, really tense scenes. A+ for that!

* Character Development actually seemed to exist in this film! It didn't feel like the actors were just reading lines and being "Colin Firth AS..." or "Geoffrey Rush AS...", there was genuine depth of character that went beyond the written word. I have a rule about actors: if I can "see" the script in my head as you're saying the line..fail. I don't want to think about stage directions or be able to "hear" the Director say "Ok, this time just give a little more feeling...". It's your job as an actor, and their jobs as writers, to make the lines believable. It's not my job as a viewer to make the connection between line and delivery in my head.

* Dumbledore & Peter Pettigrew...that's right, people, DUMBLEDORE lives! and dies..in this movie. Michael Gambon plays King George V and though I couldn't see him as anything other than Dumbledore, I felt that his performance was quite good. You could really feel his frustration with his son's speech impediment. 

Pettigrew...or rather, Timothy Spall, played Winston Churchill. Here, again, I couldn't get past the whole Harry Potter thing but his character was delightfully written. My one qualm with him was that, at times, one couldn't really understand him. I blame the years of living as a rat for this. 

* Well timed humor...well written all around. Reading the synopses, one might think this movie is just a stuffy period piece with little to offer the average movie goer..I mean, it wasn't even released to most theaters so why would it interest you? Believe me when I say, there is humor in this movie. It's no Will Ferrell movie, but the comedic timing of the actors is just as brilliant. 

I could go on about the Pros of this movie but I suppose I should leave some things to you, when you watch the movie...which you should.


* I'm no history buff and I'm aware that this movie is following a true story as closely as movie-makers will allow however, I do feel that the end of the film could've expanded a bit more on dear ol' brother, (former) King Edward VIII. I felt that the final shots with this character held great opportunity to give the viewers a bit of  a "Ha! that's what you get!" moment. Apparently that was not to be.

* I wasn't too terribly fond of the exterior shots post-start of the war, felt too CGI for me. I'm insanely picky about computer generated stuff and though this was good, it could've been better. Another rule movie rule for me: if I'm not able to fully concentrate on the acting in the foreground because I'm so distracted by the attempt at a realistic background, that's no good.

This brings me to the final portion of my "review"...the "Now Mother.." section. This section will detail (mostly) things parents should know before having Family Movie night with this selection.

Now Mother..

* This movie is rated *R* mostly for coarse language. It mainly occurs in 1-2 scenes towards the end of the movie, but one should be aware that while understandable for the writing and progression of the film, there are multiple spewings of several of today's most "popular" curse words. Viewer beware. 

* Most of the characters in this movie smoke in almost every scene. Again, understandable for the era of the film but...viewer beware.

* There is talk of affairs and indiscretions (though, in line with the times, discreetly). Viewer beware.

Considering the rating and the typical movie that warrants an R rating these days, this movie is very VERY mild. But, I do think one should know what's coming before embarking to the theater or the local Red Box.

Really, and truly, this was a good movie through and through. I might find more things to pick on as time goes on (that's how it generally works) but as of right now, I'd give this movie 4.5/5 stars. I hope you guys go see or, at least, rent this movie.

Please keep checking back for new reviews! If you're looking for info on this, or any of the movies I review, check out www.imdb.com!