"Ice Age: The Meltdown" (2006)

I watched it.  Actually I watched the beginning, the ending, then the middle, then the ending again.  So, I watched it--more or less.  Not my style of humor which makes it a hard sell for me to call it a "good movie"--and I could justifiably be told to lighten up--but this movie mostly doesn't hit my humor.  Doesn't mean it's not funny, and I'm sure it was a delight to work on.  And notice, I did watch most of it (some movies I turn off).

I'm still partial to the character Diego.  Not sure why.  I  like him, though.

I'm not gonna say it was a bad movie, because it wasn't.  It was a really decent movie.  And if cartoon slapstick is your style of humor, then it probably is a very funny movie with a really good story line.

So there you go.  Good storyline.  Nice music.  And, for those with that kind of humor, it's even funny.

Next.

"Catching Faith" (2015)

Based on how this movie started, I wasn't sure it was going to hook me into watching the whole thing, but it did.  It hooked me just enough to say, "I'll watch a little bit more...a little bit more...a little bit more...." until I'd watched the whole thing.  That means, it was interesting enough to have something there.

The themes in this story seemed to focus on first integrity, followed by equally perfection and truth.

I don't know that this a movie that I'd watch a second time, but I don't find any faults with it.  The acting was fine.  The characterization was fine.  The faith story was fine.  But that's it:  fine.

Because the purpose of the movie was to center the story around the growth of faith in 3 of the characters--and mainly the mother--that was the point of view the movie was shot from, which left this particular family's spiritual anchor--the father--as a side character.  For the movie's purpose, this was a fine choice.  For my purpose in looking for interesting characters to study, it was adequate, meaning no faults, no hooks, and nothing seen from the father's perspective--or very little.

It's a fair movie to watch--again--no faults that I find--just not a movie I'm likely to watch a second time.

"More Than Chance" (2010)

I watched the first half of this movie--and for a night when I was being extremely picky about what I was in the mood to watch, that was pretty good.

Good Qualities:  I thought the beginning handled portraying abuse very tactfully.  By no means is abuse something that should be glossed over, but by doing such, it allowed this movie to stay family friendly while acknowledging its place in the story.  The story concept was intriguing, and there was enough story bread crumbs to keep me watching for 45 minutes--and as I said before, that's saying something on a night I was in quite the finicky mood.

Challenges:  The acting was B-level acting [perhaps because it comes out of the religious drama genre which has a style of acting all its own--a style very different than "Hollywood"]--a style much like what would happen if someone said, "hey, we have a play to put on in 3 weeks.  I know we really should put in 6 weeks of time, but it's too late for that--But, I don't want us to drop it either.  So, let's go ahead and do something."  So, they put on a decent show, but didn't have the time to sink into portraying the characters with any depth--and for an emotional topic such as abuse and trust and friendship--character portrayal is central to the action.  Instead, the emotional engagement of the characters/actors was relatively flat-line to what it should have been.  As for plot line/script--I followed, and understood some of the jump and jump choices made in the scenes written and selected; but connecting these together with any unity and with character motivation, there were times I couldn't see how some of the jumps could be realistic.  I'm not saying they couldn't happen that way in "real life", but it just seemed like there were scenes missing--scenes that would've helped sustain the emotional thread that should've been there, and definitely would've helped some of the plot connections to be more effective and understandable.

Since I haven't finished this movie, I can't speak to either the ending or if where the beginning of the movie was leading actually made it to the finish line.  Nevertheless, it was a movie at least worth considering.

I'm not sure at this point if I will ever resume watching this movie or rewatch this movie in its entirety, so I'm going ahead and posting what I think of the first half.

Signing off.

"The Intern" (2015)

This is a very sweet movie--not a romance, not a heavy drama--but a nice mix of all sorts of elements.  I can't speak to the opening credits, but did see the majority of the story and it is very well done.

The music in the end credits had two parts--neither with lyrics.  The first part was in the style of the music that was through the rest of the movie.  Then the 2nd part of the music switched to a combination of clapping, stomping, and guitar playing--maybe two guitars--still light, but with a little more energy than what was played through the first part.  It was a wonderful transition out of the movie world and back to the world outside of the theater.

A very nice movie to sit back and enjoy.

"The Truth Behind: The Nasca Lines" (2010)--revisited?

I think I've watched this before--I think--either that, or another documentary about this same subject.  It was interesting the first time.  Still so the 2nd, but it is distracting to have the narrator continually talking in sentence fragments.

I'm sorry.  Correction:


It is distracting.

To have the Narrator.

Of this documentary.

About the Nasca lines.

Continually.

Talking.

In sentence fragments.

As if.

Each clause.

Deserves.

It's very own.

Dramatic.

Pause.

In order.

To give.

The proper frame.

To talk about.

The Nasca lines.

"The Prince & Me" (2004)

I'm not sure I know what expectations I have for romantic movies, but I did enjoy this one.  My enjoyment was colored a bit in realizing I'd previously read an analytical film article over this movie (sigh), so there was a slight bit of "knowing what's going to happen."  Nevertheless, I settled back and quite enjoyed this movie.

The leading lady was the same actress as played "Nikki" in the Bourne movies.  So, it was good to see her in a different role.  I was also delighted that the college setting didn't include any crass scenes.  I was also glad that the movie didn't end at the first "then the boy got the girl" moment and lead through at least one "and then what?"

The forefronted music and end credits music was what I call "Back porch" music--which fit the Wisconsin girl roots very well, but didn't seem particularly memorable.

Overall, this movie did a decent job at telling the romance story.  Cheers!

"Patterns of Evidence: Exodus" (2014)

I was skeptical at first--not knowing what angle this documentary was going to take--but overall, was very pleased with it.  Because of the lateness of the hour during which I was watching this, I had to fast forward through parts.  For that, I apologize that I don't have an every minute view of this piece.  That being said, I was satisfied with the parts I saw, which was the larger part of this documentary.

This 2 hour documentary asks the question "Does archaeological evidence exist for the Exodus of the Bible?"  The content is framed with that of a filmmaker seeking answers, but that's all that it serves--as a frame to hold the content together.  I seeks to set up a dialogue between the various views of things; therefore, it doesn't seek to set forward a "Here's the conclusion" ending to the quest.  Nevertheless, the evidence presented favors in such a way that, a least for a Christian, this film can be seen as a "let's just hear about the cool stuff you've found" and take the rest with a grain of salt.  Again, because I am a biased audience and because of the lateness of the hour, I can't imagine how the skeptics would see this film, nor can I guess since that is part of what I missed in my fast forward bits.  The movie kept an ongoing graphic running to help the viewer keep track of where things stood in the course of the investigation--and it was a graphic I very much appreciated and liked.

The documentary didn't tackle "Where's Mt. Sinai?" or the crossing of the red sea.  But did cover as far back as Joseph's initial travels to Egypt all the way to the conquering of Canaan (notably the fall of Jericho).  What it did cover, it covered thoroughly enough--and recapped the evidence in support of its main points every so often--that I didn't feel anything was "missing."

I found this documentary interesting and recommend it for others' consideration.  Please note, this is a 2 hour film.

"Up" (2009)

If the arts are what is a part of what it means to be human, this movie captures this--WITH A PASSION.  When I went to hit "play", I was in a pretty happy mood.  This movie managed to bring me to heart-felt tears 11 minutes into the movie.  What film manages to do such a thorough job in such a short amount of time?  And then, once that point was reached, knew what to do with story then.

(after watching the rest of the movie:)

Very nice film with a sweet ending--a comedy that needs a tissue box at the beginning and the end, and they were sweet tears at that. And the music award is well deserved!  

I thoroughly recommend this movie!

"If I Had Wings" (2013)

For a "simple" story, it has a quite a number of little themes that work together for one solo story line with two faces.  Even the resolution in the ending has a nice "big smile" quality to it.

The various themes or facets touch on who you make friends with, relationships across classes, across disabilities, delinquency, reputations, bullies, and reacting to bullies (and not just from the main characters--the reactions are "true" in that there is a variety--not just polar).

And the story didn't seem forced in anyway.

I enjoyed this movie and felt it a good watch.  And while not as complex as others, it is complex enough, and it carries it out well.

"Crooked Arrows" (2012)

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie.

While it is a sports movie with all the classic loosing team turns around and makes it to the play offs pieces, it is really just a secondary story mechanic for the real story that this movie is.  The main story line very wonderfully puts the sport in the background subservient to the main one--except that main line then takes that sport and shifts the prism that you look through at it bringing it back into the center of the picture being taken.  No longer is the sport one of competition, but it becomes part of the cultural identity quest that the main character and the lacrosse team are a part of--a reconnecting that a number of the characters go through.

And it was a wonderful combination.  It had the familiar--as I said, all of the elements familiar to a sports movie--so those expectations were met.  This allowed the possibility of just enjoying the unfamiliar, that is the cultural themes surrounding the refashioning of character and the camaraderie of the team that comprised facets of the main line.  And those two facets are not even the complete main story line picture.

When a movie ends, and I find that I've totally enjoyed myself and yet want more--because that depth was there--that definitely makes the movie tops for me.

I can't speak for the portrayal of the Native American culture in the movie, but since the credits, beginning and end, state the movie was made in consultation with the Onondaga Nation (if not others), I can only hope that the camaraderie shown in the ending of the movie and in the end credits was the same camaraderie in existence behind the scenes in the making of the movie.  And if it wasn't, there is something to strive for with future films.  And if there was, all the more satisfaction for me.  And based on the end credits, I choose to believe that it was more than likely the latter.

This is one movie I would enjoy watching again.

"The General" (1926)

A Buster Keaton movie.  Confederates are the protagonist and Union the antagonists in this story line, but otherwise, movie isn't political.  It's an adventure action comedy, with a romantic twist threaded through it.  Mildly slapstick/physical humor, of course, since it is a silent movie.  Absolutely delightful movie.  Grins and smiles throughout this movie where I found me sitting on the edge of my seat without the stress of a supercharged suspense movie.

Trying to decide of Buster Keaton was a short man.  This movie made it look so.  The movie definitely highlighted the strength and agility needed by train engineers--or abilities had and used by Buster Keaton--or both.  "A Crash Course on How to Run a Steam Engine in 1861" certainly crossed my mind, but the character Johnnie Gray didn't need the crash course; he already knew.  Still, the various adventures along the way opened up to me details I hadn't pieced all the way together--things that were matter-of-fact, day to day things then.  Interesting.

"Fantomas V: The False Magistrate" (1914)

Once again, great story-telling in that I had no idea how and where the story was going to go even up to the end.  The one exception was that Fantomas would somehow escape (so that there could be more stories to come) and that otherwise everything else would be found out and resolved.

And once again I'm affirmed in my thinking that movies need more bassoon music.

And Fantomas's lover/girlfriend/romantic interest?  She sure has a time of it, poor girl.

This Fantomas movie had more lost filmage then others I've seen, so there were screens of narrative writing to help cover gaps in the story.  As far as fantastic stunts, the scene in the bell tower is worth considering.  Not a lot of Juve and Fandor this time.  Compared to other Fantomas stories, this one seemed to have a lot more letter writing and just sitting and talking--which is a challenge for silent movies.

Once again, well done, people.

"The Single Moms Club" (2014)

Very good.  Very very good.  Just repeat that over and over about 50 times.  (balanced stories, and balanced types of stories; balanced types of characters.)  Very nice.  (49, 48, 47 ...)

"Lemonade Mouth" (2011)

This was a very good movie.  It is a musical, a teen movie, and a Cinderella story all rolled into one solid smooth-flowing summer delight.  Many of the songs start in either found music moments or poignant story moments that spark a song.  The characters are real--the guys and girls alike, including strong girls and ones less so (but that learn to be strong in other ways).  The "bad guys" take a mild form of other band rivals and of a school with an out-of-balance focus on which extra-curriculars are important.  While the school may be out of balance, there isn't any program bashing.  The energies center more around a principal that is played a comic edge off of center.  Same goes for the rival band in that, while the rival band stirs things up, this movie isn't about bullies bashing, bully bashing, or bashing bullies back.  This movie is sooo, nicely done--and without ham-y acting.

Why have I resisted this movie for so long?

If you enjoy any of the above elements, then I would hardily recommend this movie.

"She's All That" (1999)

I normally like "Cinderella" story lines--decided I even favor them.  So, I was optimistic that I'd enjoy this film.  I was thinking it would score at least a 4 out 5, maybe even a 5.  But it scored a 3.

The storyline was indeed "Cinderella" and it had a great build up, all the way through to the high tension moment near the end. ... You know how when you watch a movie and the bad guys get it, and then you chide yourself for rooting for the demise of another human being?  Okay, maybe that's just me.  But, I'll do that.  I'll be happy the opposition got "what's coming to them" and then scold myself later.

Want to see what it would look like to have the good guys win and not parade the bad guys demise on the screen?  That would be this movie.  The good guys win, sorta, and the bad guys lose, I guess. Well, the boy and girl got together and it was pretty, but all the other--okay, most of the other stuff was left out, skimmed past, and told 2nd hand.  And then, boom, the movie is over.  And the end credit music didn't help. (More about that in a minute.)  So, the broad story line was great but the ending felt like a let down.  How do you manage to let an audience down and still have a happy ending?  Was it to avoid being cliche like every other romance in an attempt to be different?  Then wouldn't more of the movie have been different?  I don't know what's worse/better:  having a "fill in the blank" movie that is immensely satisfying, or a "we managed to do the impossible and made it unique" with what felt like a dud ending to me.  Maybe this hit somewhere between the two extremes.  The problem is then it becomes lukewarm and that is not much better.  If you're going to be different, than be different.  If you're going to be "fill in the blank," then fill in the blanks well.

There were, I suppose, a few "comic" moments.  I didn't like them.  I recognized them as "humor" but instead of even being amused (and definitely not laughing), I found myself wondering how many teenagers would be laughing their heads off at those moments.  Not me.  Get on with it.  Did I mention those moments were crass?

Side note:  lead character's little brother apparently wore hearing aids, but it never came up as any figure of dialogue, story, or even character.  So, at most, they were costume props.  That may not be a bad thing.  Maybe even good--that that sort of thing is normal and not a big deal.  Just struck me as untypical to include something like that and then do nothing with it.  And we've arrived back at the "Are they trying to be original here?" question.

So, most of the story was well done up until the conclusion.  The characters were fine.  The humor was not.  Music.

I liked the school sidewalk rap about Laney.  I'm sure the Prom dance was a matter of high interest for the teen crowd in the audience ("What moves are they doing?").  I'm not sure I felt the end credit music fit.  I will fully admit I'm not in touch with what's current--not now and not when this was filmed.  But from my own view point, the end credit music neither helped the ending soar, nor helped the audience transition back to reality.  The pud ending was followed by music that didn't seem to fit--at least not stylistically.  I can't tell you about the words.  I was too busy trying to puzzle out what I felt "my" story was missing ["Hey where's my..."] to pay attention to words.

One creative bit I did like is how they filmed the flashback early on and the one dream sequence.  The transitions to both were wonderful as well as how each fit editing-wise with the rest of the movie.  I like how both "played" with reality.  Very nice.

I don't feel like I got my end of the bargain with this movie, BUT I don't find it a waste of time either.  I just wanted a different last 15 minutes of the story.

"Legally Blonde" (2001)

I think I may have seen bits and pieces of this movie in passing (which would make this review a "revisited" one) except I'm pretty sure I hadn't seen all of it together (making it the first I've seen the whole thing).

I enjoyed this.  Light enough to not be so heavy.  No "stupid" humor, yet comedic (if you wish to see it that way).  Serious moments to balance the humorous--making it seem "real."  And "Yeah!  Got 'em!" moments to feel the story is satisfactorily finished by the end of the movie.  End credit music is appropriate.

Nice job.

"Clue" (1985)--Revisited

I watched this movie originally in theaters.  I remembered being confused initially in trying to keep straight who was who, and then the multiple endings came up and it was "hopeless."  This time I find a few mental tricks to at least help keep straight who was who.  It also helped to be able to hit pause and rewind as much as needed.  :)

I enjoyed watching this movie again.  And it is definitely one I'd probably enjoy rewatching a few more times.  Comic timing is nice and the comedy isn't over done.  (Regular readers know how seldom I say that.)  Music was kept to just the places and moments that needed it.

Well done.

"The World of Eric Carle" (1993)

These are 5 children's stories, all by Eric Carle.  Or at least I assume they're all children's stories.  I did recognize the first one (the story highlighted in some of the video titles [see below]).  I'm just assuming the rest come from the same origins.  The artwork is in the same style for all 5 stories.  The common theme for all 5 is that the world (especially nature) is beautiful and should be wondered at.  The 5th selection focused on music ("I See a Song") and art together.  None of these stories are "get in a hurry" stories.  They're stories meant to linger over and enjoy, much like being read to at bedtime where you just want the book/story to last as long as possible.  Yes, indeed, this video is like a visual bedtime story--and just as delightful.

The 5 stories:  "The Very Hungry Caterpillar," "Papa, Please Get the Moon for Me," "The Very Quiet Cricket," "The Mixed Up Chameleon," and "I See a Song"

Side note:
Netflix title:  "The Very Hungry Caterpillar".
The video's beginning credits title and the title listed on the visual cover: "The Very Hungry Caterpillar and other Stories".
The video's ending credits title and IMDB's title: "The World of Eric Carle".

"Shrek 2" (2004)

I actually laughed out loud once or twice.  That's saying something.  I quite enjoyed this movie.  I'm not going to say I laughed all the way through, because I didn't.  (I know, I know.  Picky, picky.)  Nevertheless, I enjoyed this movie.  The moment that I remember laughing to?  Puss in Boots eyes, when he uses them against the castle guard.  Let's see, I probably enjoyed the use of the "Mission Impossible" theme.  And I enjoyed seeing Captain Hook as a piano player.  Nice.

Okay.  That was a nice watch.

"Bridge to Terabithia" (2007)

I know this movie was originally a book, but it is a book I haven't read.  So, not only can I not speak to how well it is adapted, I'll be talking from the perspective of evaluating the story purely from a movie-goer's view.

This movie was a real quality movie, and a tear-jerker.  Why don't they make adult movies of this quality?  Is it that such a task is impossible?

The heartbreaks of junior high life.  The ups and downs of a coming of age.  The balancing act of fancy and reality.

And why do good friendship movies end with one friend dying or leaving?

The heaven/hell theology was atrocious in that the view stated is the view the world would like to believe, not the truth.  However, in the context of the story, it isn't dwelt on aside from it being a natural question a grieving person would ask, and the person hearing what we--both the griever and the audience--want to hear in the context of the story.  Too bad.  It wouldn't have taken much to turn it true, but would turning the story true (as in carpentry straight) would Leslie's character been unable to hold up to being consistent and believable  herself?

It was nice to see a balanced boy bullies and girl bullies in the story.

(After watching author and director commentary:)

What a difference context makes.  The real life inspiration for the story for the author--that was missing information from my view earlier/above.  It makes the story sweeter now.  And I like the view expressed (paraphrased): "If the book gets to be too much, put it down.  It will be there later.  That's the nice thing about books."  (author)

The editorial/commentary/interview also illuminated Leslie's theology as something she was "poor" in to parallel Jess's financially poor state.  Hmm....

Overall, well done, guys.  Well done.

"Ice Age" (2002)

Regular readers of this blog will already know that I have talked about my dry sense of humor before.  Therefore, it shouldn't be a surprise that I didn't laugh at most of the humor here--the humor tries too hard, or my humor has gotten drier as I've gotten older.  That being said, the story is decent, even enjoyable.  I found the beginning (how the mammoth and sloth got together) a bit forced, but once past that, the story was enjoyable--even if the humor was, well, more for others' taste.  I did enjoy it, and liked the ending.

"Fantomas IV: Fantomas vs. Fantomas" (1914)

This story is so well told.  The elements seem simple, and yet how everything is going to come about and how things are exactly going to wind up is not clear, nor is it so easy to guess.  This kind of masterful writing is hard to find these days.  What's more, it's not a cliche genre movie, at least I don't think so.  It doesn't even coin the beginnings of one.  It's part of the wonderful series of Fantomas movies--so there's more than one--, yet, it clearly stands on its own.

This French movie needed an American name.  The name they came up with "Tom Bob."  Nothing like putting two first names together to create an "authentic" American name.  :S  :)

If you haven't watched any of the Fantomas movies, you should.  This one is well worth watching.  And by telling you, "Three identical disguises from three different parties.  What could possibly go wrong?" I am giving away nothing.  You might guess where its going to go, but I predict the better majority of you won't guess, not completely correctly, anyways.  [Hey, I make predictions about your experience, can't I?]

Granted, it takes watching 1 or 2 Fantomas movies to keep track of who's who (they all seem to have dark hair and mustaches), and the Fantomas himself is in several disguises.  That's where the first "introducing the actor/character" bit at the beginning is helpful.  "This actor will have these 4 appearances."  That is helpful.  Then you can play "I spy Fantomas!" as the movie goes on.

Go.  Go watch it.  It's a well-spent hour.

"The Rescuers" (1977)--Revisited

The very first movie that I saw in movie theaters that I can actually remember the title of is The Rescuers.  I remember my Dad recounting afterwards how I'd gotten "tickled" at the chase scene near the end.  And now, X-number of years later, I still find that chase scene grinningly funny.  The only difference is then it was brand new and the here-and-now I can put words to why it was funny--or I can try.  For me, it's not the slapstick, not so much.  Instead, some of it is the unexpected.  Some of it is actually managing to capture irony.  The moment that most captures my funny bone?  When the jack rabbit snaps his fishing reel back to snag the turtle and the turtle says, "I don't need no one's help" when he very clearly does.  The turtle snaps and the jack rabbit doesn't bat an eye taking it all in stride and helps him anyway.  That's the moment that does it.  Every. Time.  lol.  :D    And the music in that section just adds to it.  Music/sound adds SO much to a movie.  Don't let anyone ever tell you otherwise.

"Meet Me in St. Louis" (1944)

It's clear that this movie was meant to showcase two things:  Judy Garland and color.  There were several scenes where Garland's attire is opposite of those around her in order for her to stand out a little more.  Who can miss the stripes when she first appears?  In the first party scene, her blue is in such a shade that it stands out against the other folks' apparel.  Later, when those surrounding here are costumed in very very festive colors, Garland is in black--which both makes her stand out and frames her face.  The house, too, is repainted (not repainted within the storyline) to best showcase each season of the year.  And, of course, who can not enjoy the dramatic depth-of-dimension of a well known alto vocalist in the age where "crooners" are highly valued.

For a musical, the plot was believeable and held the songs together well-enough.  It was curious to have the adults/older figures reprimand the younger for lying and then  would turn around and do it themselves in both the same and in other circumstances.

"Ghost Graduation" (2012)

In Spanish, mostly, (and I believe set in Spain) except for a few English pop songs and once when the teacher says that Shakespeare should be read in English instead of Spanish and attempts to speak a few lines in English from the Hamlet's ghost scene.  The English songs were "Total Eclipse of the Heart" (turn around ... turn around ... turn around ...), "Saturday Night", and "Surfer Bird" ("Everybody's heard, about the bird ... bird is the word, bird, bird, bird, bird is the word...).  There were Spanish songs to.  So, it was a sub title movie.

The premise of the plot is a "done before" one, but since it takes its time, there's enough "what is this version going to do?" to keep watching to see how this one is going to go.

The "humor" I didn't find funny.  Thankfully, it wasn't "stupid" humor.  Instead, the humor played to "mature audiences only"--just enough to be rated for such, but the movie didn't center on it, so it wasn't too bad to ignore it.  There really wasn't any other kind of humor.  It was mainly "for mature audiences only".  And if you prefer family friendly, then you can skip this movie.  If you enjoy the mature humor or if you don't mind looking past it, then the plot is actually enjoyable.  I wish they'd scaled back some of the visuals, but that's me.

So, why did I start watching it?  Teacher helps ghosts.  Others don't believe teacher sees ghosts.  I thought it would be a nice twist/variation on teacher helps students.  It was.  Sort of.  So even though I didn't like the mature humor and mature visual humor etc., the plot was decent enough for me to watch to the end.  That does say something.

Now I'm ready to watch something with better values.  Christians need to make more movies or need to have more Christians involved in movie making.

"Show Boat" (1951)

Nice music.  I know "Old Man River" sung by Paul Robeson was in it, but was happily surprised that I recognized a couple other tunes.  Cotton Candy colors for set and a lot of the costumes.  Wasn't sure where and how the story was going to end.  Certainly a show that's better left just focusing on the music.  Although, I also kept wondering how the gals managed to sing in corsets.  And, yes, the dangers of marrying a gambler.

"Step Dogs" (2013)

Stupid criminal movie with dogs that talk to each other doing fun tricks as the dogs thwart the criminals.  The human story is warm, not too deep, but thoughtful and avoids the cheesy--unless you count the dogs' dialogue styles.  Most of the humor is stupid criminal or slapstick style.

The movie is a decent watch.  It'll fill the time of a movie okay.

"Cloud 9" (2014)

It's a fluffy movie, at least at the beginning, it's a fluffy movie; but, it's a fluffy movie worth the time to watch it once.  And it was nice watching a girl pull out the winning big move at the end instead of the boy.  One plot surprise that wasn't surprising--I mean--I didn't see it coming, but when it happened it kind of rolled on by--it was in character--and therefore not surprising.  Anyways, it's a nice family movie.

Have fun watching other people play in the snow while you stay inside warm.

"Fireproof" (2008)

While there are traces of decision theology within--mainly hinted at in one scene--this movie is really nice.  There's not many romances that I warm up to--and even fewer that I'll watch more than once, but maybe they're like my books.  For sheer numbers, the romance books that I enjoy are ones that God is in, too.  And this movie does that.  In fact, if I twist the words some, it says how can you truly love another human without having received God's love.  Maybe that's how I look at it--how can you have a romance story without having the ultimate romance of God for mankind included?  And even if such a story exists without God in it, only God's love and truly change someone, from the inside.

Movie has a couple of fire rescue scenes and lines from the firehouse that work to parallel the marriage journey.

Good to see Ken Bevel again.  I've enjoyed both roles that he's played.

As for sound--must have done an awesome job underscoring and being invisible because I only remember it during the montages and the end credits, and it was great both places.

And fun moments?  Taking the baseball bat to the computer, and reactions from the neighbors.

"An American Girl: McKenna Shoots For the Stars" (2012)

I think if I had watched this 25 years ago or earlier, I totally would have loved this for what it is.  And tonight, when I was looking for lighter fare, it fit the bill perfectly.  The story had its ups and downs to it.  There's a wide range of abilities, strengths, and challenges across the whole range of characters.  Overall, a very pleasant movie and very enjoyable.  I do recommend it.

If you hear a hint of hesitation in that, there is.  And it's not due to the fact this American Girl was shot in Canada.  I find that an interesting quirk, but nothing to get worked up about.  And my hesitation shouldn't hamper any qualms about watching the movie--it was totally refreshing to watch a lighter movie without the ham-y or overdone acting that seems to pervade so many other children-centered movies and TV shows.  It was sooo nice to see natural acting.  Instead, it's something else that's needling me.

You know how you can watch some odd movie--pick any current day genre--and the cast seems to be predominantly male with a token female character or two?  Those movies are annoying because it seems to me, for lack of a better word, "obvious" and insincere.  In this movie, as much as I enjoyed seeing all the lead characters as female (and I did--honest), this movie world is in some ways (not all ways) idealized and almost does the exact same thing.  Nearly all female cast, with a couple of token male characters.  Even the classroom shots and crowd shots seem to be predominantly female except for a scattered male extra here and there.  Although, I did appreciate seeing a dual parent family--father and mother--instead of just one or the other.  That helped a lot.

Perhaps some might make the accusation:  "You're just so used to seeing male-centered movies, you don't know what a female-centered one looks like."  Perhaps.  But God didn't make a world made of a single gender.  He made two genders, each to serve the other in ways of His designing, ways modeled after the relationship between Christ the groom and the bride his church.  Both.  Together.

What that means to me from a critical, analytical stand point, is that I'm just as leery about this movie as I would with one with a token female character.  Both miss the mark.  However, this viewpoint is from someone who has been presented with feminist views.  That changes a person's information bank.  So, now looking at this movie...well...the only thing I can liken this reading inside is how I found Cathy cartoons funny before I knew what feminism was and I laugh less now that I've had more of the world presented for my consideration.  And this is regarding a cartoonist who is trying to present the humor of a situation, not an academic diatribe.  And I liked Cathy. 

Maybe that's a topic best left for another time.

And I supposed I may have offended some for such remarks made for a very well done movie.  I just think there's an in-between mark that a story can reside in that we have yet to hit.

Despite my hesitation, I did thoroughly enjoy this movie.  And this movie has made up some ground to get closer to that target mark.  As for me, this was pretty much what the evening called for.

"The Boxcar Children" (2014)

I read the book(s) ages ago as a kid.  And for what I remember of the book, they did a good rendition of it in this animated movie.  Even if I'd never read the book, this is a very pleasant story, something happy to relax to.  And, yeah, I'd watch this movie all over again.  :)   And if you like family movies, I'd highly recommend this.  And if you like stories and images that will prompt warm, fuzzy memories, this will do the trick.

"Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters" (2013)

Okay, I admittedly overlooked the movie violence rating for this movie.  I was just scanning the plot lines.  If 10 is a perfect family movie and a 1 is the worst thing possible, I would put this at about a 2 or 2 1/2.  So, if that turns you off right there, or raises a red flag for you (better than the rating did for me) then you can just stop reading right there and skip this movie.

For me, the funny thing is this is one of those movies I'll have to not give an overall rating because it's not possible.  Here's what I mean:

NEGATIVES:  I don't see a necessity in slipping in even an occasional cuss word.  For me it continues to be a sign of either a lack of writing skill to be able to avoid or a cheap shot to get a higher rating.  Then there's the gore factor to this film.  Okay, fight scenes in action movies don't bother me, say, 8 times out of 10.  But I don't want to see it--the splatters I mean--and I don't want to hear it.  The visual and audio gore to this film are huge downers for me.  And on that basis, I'd give the film a 2 out of 5 rating.  And, oh yeah, the unnecessary nudity scene.  Yeah, that's not needed.  I did mention this wasn't even remotely something for families, right?

POSITIVES;  The problem is there are parts of this film I really like, parts that normally I would rate very highly.  The mixture of present day qualities and characteristics thrown into a mostly medieval world is a fun mixture.  There's the star-crazed "I'm a huge fan of yours" fan, hand-drawn missing kids' pictures on medieval milk bottles, guns are present yet cooking is done by open kettles over fire, and other here and there medieval style gizmo's and gadgets--the hand-pumped defibrillator or watches/timers.
Another positive is the story line.  I enjoyed the twists and turns and the guess where we're going next.  Hansel and Gretel have equal fighting billing--and it's as brother-sister instead of romantic hero and romantic heroine.  (Not pushing this female around, but she's not any more over the top in her fighting than Hansel is--like I said, equal "billing"--and the fighting seems in keeping with this style of movie.)
Finally, the lead characters--one has an "Achilles heel"--it's the medieval-witch equivalent of being diabetic (for lack of a better word and because despite rewinding the movie, I couldn't make out the term being said).  It added a little suspense to the action, added character to Hansel's character, and made him just a tick off of perfect; lead characters that aren't perfect, that have that Achilles heel, and that is worked in throughout the story is usually a HUGE draw for me.  These positives together would normally lead me to give the movie a 5 out of 5 rating--a rating that is hard to come by for me.

So there you go.  Equally a 2 and a 5 means I don't rate it at all.

Do I recommend the movie?  Guess it depends on what you're looking for.  Too bad they don't have more of this well done storyline and humor at a violence/sexuality rating that's a little less graphic.  Too bad.  'cause I really liked some of those story scenes.

"Zoom: Academy for Superheroes" (2006)

Okay, I've pretty much conceded that they just don't make movies with my sense of humor (sigh).  That being said, I know comedies are tough!  And awards get-ups should acknowledge the differences more.  Think about it.  When action movie people want action, or want more action, they add more action--many times dictated by the kind of genre being written.  Same goes for mysteries and dramas.  But for comedy, you have so many different kinds of humor that it takes real talent to add all of them in there.  While this movie pretty much doesn't have my kind of humor, it does a nice job of balancing a number of other kinds.

First off, they have the politically correct number of super heroes--two boys, two girls, two teenagers, two kids--totaling a team of four non-adults.  And as such, they have the token romance--okay double romance.  They have what I call the "stupid humor" scenes that others so love--and that I'm guessing must appeal to kids more.  After all, if you're going to have little kids, then you've got to have the humor that tends to appeal to them--or at least must seem to appeal to kids, because they sure build a lot of kids' movies and kids' TV shows with that style of humor.

So, this movie has a nice balance of characters, of humor, of story parts for the super hero genre, is pretty family-friendly, and has an overall story line geared for family watching.  It does fit into superhero movies on the perimeter--it wasn't the line of story I was hoping for--but it was interesting enough that I watched all the way through and quite enjoyed about 96% of it--which is a nice high percentage for me.

As for any "accusations" along the line of "What's wrong with the movie?"

First, nothing.  I've mentioned the humor.  The humor's fine.  I personally don't go for the "stupid humor" scenes (most of the 4% I took off), but it wasn't overbearing and I know a number of folks like it.  So, the humor is fine.  I won't say no complaints (I have high standards for personal tastes), but nothing worth going on and on about.

Second, if I can't find the movies I want to see, then I really should work on honing the skill to write the scripts for such.  I seem to remember reading something about Toni Morrison saying that's part of how or why she started writing novels--she was tired of not reading what she wanted to read.  So, really I should do the same thing.  If I'm tired of not watching what I want to watch, maybe I should work on writing it. (Publishing it or producing it is obviously a whole other matter.)  

Third, if this movie were to hit the "100% and I totally loved it!" mark, then the movie would maybe be less light in places which then would feel like missing the mark for some folks' definition of a "good" family movie.  And I don't want it to miss the mark for them.  I'm just spending a lot of time searching for movies to hit my mark.  (Okay, I'm spoiled by great literature and I know what intrigues me about stories.  What of it?)

I often have grudges about how a movie starts and ends, but this was at least well-rounded (for lack of a better term).  I can live with that.

Another sign this was a decent movie that I enjoyed?  I want to know if there will be a sequel--or TV show spin off.

The "Cindy"/"Princess" character was great!  And I liked what the story line spun for "Dylan"/"Houdini".

"Fantomas III: The Murderous Corpse" (1913)--revisited

Part of the definition of "classic" should be the ability to enjoy it just as much--if not more--on subsequent viewings.  I enjoyed this more the 2nd time now that I'm more familiar with the characters--having now watched Fantomas I & II.  And I still like the use of bassoons and feel that they have been underused in cinema soundtracks.  The first time I was greatly confused on who was who, especially since Juve and Fantomas used different disguises, but having gotten used to who was who and this concept from the first time I watched III, then I, & II, I could make a lot more sense of it now.  And even with know what was going to happen this time, I still enjoyed the movie.  Or concert with pictures.

"Fantomas II: Juve vs. Fantomas" (1913)

I don't have any way of knowing how close to the original the sound track is--or even if the original had any live sound accompaniment--but for the sound track that was included with this version, I have this to say:  Soundtracks should use bassoons more like this one did.  Maybe we'd have a few more bassoon players if we did.  I've also decided that silent films are best watched in the morning when you first wake up.

Wondering why silent films have such a strong association to "simple stories", at least for me?  There's nothing "simple" about it.  It's just as good as any current day story, if not better then at least some.  Is it the sound of dialogue that makes stories seem more complex?  And if it is, why don't we talk about it more?  Or maybe it's the idea that it's "simpler" to just listen to a movie than to watch and read one.  And in the process of thinking about what's "simpler" for ourselves, we mix the two up and think that movies are what's simple and that we're getting a more complex experience by watching something we can also hear.

Surprises in this film:  the fake arms--I didn't see that coming, and I didn't understand what cause the final explosion--I know that we were shown, but I didn't understand it.  And who the "silent killer" was.

And Lady Belmont--does she love the guy out of fear?  Or is she so surprised to see him that she doesn't know what to think?  Or is it realizing that she loves a guy that's capable of murder and she's just now figuring this out?