"A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood" (2019)

This was very different than what I thought it would be.  I don’t think that’s good or bad.  I think if they’d have done what I thought they would do, I’d have been disappointed—no matter how good it would’ve been.  However they didn’t.  It shifted to focus on someone else’s story.

But they didn’t do weird either.  It was just introspective enough to be good, but it managed to not drag the story either.  

Good choice of beginning and ending.  I loved the inclusion of songs Fred Rogers wrote and the cameos—although I didn’t realize the cameos at the time—and, finally, it found an acceptable way of honoring Mr. Rogers without either over idolizing in a saccharin-sweet way or destroying the positive good he contributed to society.

“Not Cinderella’s Type” (2018)

I am still a sucker for a Cinderella story. It is definitely my favorite story type. I came across this movie on Roku and have since discovered it is on YouTube as well. Over the last week, this movie has become an obsession. I cannot stop watching this movie or parts of the movie. I am enjoying it SO much.

It is a different type of movie from other Cinderella stories in that focuses in on the emotional abuse from Indy’s family (Indy = Cinderella). Oh, there’s still romance, but the story drama is more subtle. In this story, the riches (rich prince) are the safety that the Bailey family offer Indy away from her atrocious family. The love and caring that they express towards Indy—steadily and slow slowly, even after initial pushback—is so heartwarming and endearing. My only sad regret is that there’s not more story at the end, or an even a sequel. I would love to continue watching Indy’s recovery process and future adventures.

don’t let what seems to be a low-budget movie hinder you. This is one movie that I highly recommend.

"Lady Ballers" (2023)

It has been quite a while since I've watched a brand new movie.  Part of it was "life," but also part has been nothing has really grabbed my interest enough to want to see it.  I have a few movies I've purchased, but even now, they sit on the coffee table waiting...waiting.  They even still have the plastic wrappers still on.  Maybe I'll get them watched over the holiday break...or maybe not.  We'll see.  In the meantime, tonight I decided to watch Lady Ballers.  This was a good see.

This kept my interest for the whole movie.  More than that, I can see actually watching this movie a second time.  The story arc was good.  I liked the ending.  It made sense how they got into the predicaments and how they got out of things in the end.  It had the right mix of humor and serious moments while maintaining the overall comedy genre.  I only wish I weren't still prone to coughing/hacking (recent illness) in order to full-out laugh.  All the more reason to re-watch it again later.

Some of the fun of this movie was to watch things get crazier and crazier.  I especially enjoyed the progression of change from the two WIAW newscasters.  Some of the other fun with this movie was spotting where the different personalities from the Daily Wire--and Jeremy's products--would make their appearance.  Some subtle appearances.  Some not so subtle.  And some was hearing particular lines coming out of particular personalities' mouths (Ben Shapiro, Brett Cooper, Matt Walsh, etc.).

I also quite liked the choice of ballet-music as the music of choice for some of the sports montages, heightened by the slo-mo and staging choices.

This was a comedy that I could enjoy, and I do recommend that others see it.  It is well worth the watch.

"A Cinderella Story: If the Shoe Fits" (2016)

 My second dive into Tubi on Roku resulted in me coming across this film.  As I've said before, I'm a sucker for a good Cinderella story.  That's probably my favorite story type, and this was a fun find.  It's carried out in the vein of a musical--both in story style and a large part of the setting.  

The costumes were so much fun.  Oh, my--Divine's outfits were hilariously and wonderfully over the top.  Olympia (the short one) was a extremely close second.  Okay, those two might be a tie.  The show's costumes fit into style of musical theatre, too.  

I love the comic ploys to extend and cover delays in the play within a play.

It had the right amount of songs and dance sequences.  I kind of liked the repeated song motif that they went with.  I could live with the lip synced songs, although, I was momentarily pulled out each time the transition happened, especially at the start of the song.

I was okay with the choice for Cinderella to save herself--and it did work for this movie--but it's also one of the things I like about this story line, so I miss it when it doesn't happen.  I know that if  the script writers would have had "Prince Charming" come to save Cinderella, there would be push back criticizing the story bit in terms of modern public values.

But that's just it.

Sometimes a person finds themself so buried in a situation that it takes someone outside of themselves to say, "Hey, let me lend you a hand." And that moment, is one of this story arc's sweet spots.  Instead, this Cinderella had a split moment of stress, a huff, and then, "Okay, how do I solve this?"  So, she sings, dances, fixes motors, and saves herself.  So, why did she need "Prince Charming" again?  The answer to that makes me sad.

Missing sweet spots aside (yes, plural), I thoroughly enjoyed myself.  Once I decided to deliberately suspend my disbelief (and I had to take a firm step in that direction to have that happen), then I am relaxed into enjoying the show.  In fact, I definitely would watch this again...and again.  That's a "win!" that I don't say about musicals very often.

"Queen Bees" (2021)

 "It will be funny!"

"We laughed--a lot!"

"It's so funny!"

My friends had heard this a lot, and the trailer certainly tried to promote this movie as a comedy.  I will attest that the group of movie go-ers in front of us did laugh throughout film, so would probably agree with the sentiments above.  I, however, have a much drier sense of humor, so I would not have called this a comedy.  

That said, I will admit that "Rom-Com" is probably the genre that fits this movie best.  The romance story line for this movie was good, the characters well-developed--or at least good enough for a Rom-Com, and almost had the makings for an all-around sweet, light-hearted escape.

Almost.

I have been trying to guess what happened.  Maybe the writers/movie makers took a detour in the midst of the otherwise solid movie because of compromises made behind the scenes; or maybe the choices were dictated by those who had a different vision from those who had the original concept; or maybe it was an attempt to add elements to make the movie conform to a particular standard genre; or maybe it was trying too hard to be funny (which isn't effective); or maybe it was a new writer/director/somebody trying out their wings and still growing in confidence and skill.  I'm not sure what it is.  I only know that the movie wasn't 100% cohesive, and the non-cohesive part felt forced.

Authors know that sometimes cuts have to be made if something isn't contributing to the bigger whole.  Sometimes those cuts are painful or difficult, but the end result is a better product.  I wished that that had been done because this movie had the makings to be a 9 out of 10.  Instead, I was left feeling that it had reached a 7.7.  

I think I would've loved what was done with the end credits, but my personal experience was marred a little by an unfortunate incident that happened within my specific movie-going experience; so, I can only surmise what I think the effect of the end credits would have been, and I think I would've loved it.

Positives:  The romance story really is quite sweet.  Seeing the friendships start to come together was also promising.

Suggestions for improvement:  read  "The Miller, his Son, and the Ass"

"Jungle Cruise" (2021)

I didn't know I was going to be going to the movies and didn't know a thing about this movie beforehand, but I don't mind going into a movie blind.  

For the most part, the movie did a good job.  Decent plot (8 out 10), although the plot-twist was fun because I didn't see it coming.  Acceptable characters (7.5 out 10, [although I'd add more to that rating for Frankie's looks]).  Gorgeous music--especially during the end credits (10 out of 10).  Action sequences (9.5 out 10).  Humor (8 out of 10).  All of the elements combined together created an enjoyable diversion that afternoon.  The scenery and set were wonderful (10 out of 10).  

But, aside from the music and the set, I don't know that there was much to make the movie standout (e.g memorable lines, captivating moments/scene).  That said, I'm definitely looking up that end music again.

"The Man Who Invented Christmas" (2017)

When a friend recommended this movie to me, I was intrigued and skeptical.  Intrigued because as a novel writer myself, I can relate to characters existing "in the room"--so I wanted to see how close someone else's view was of this.  (It was practically identical.  Nice.)  Skeptical because I wasn't sure how much of my own writer's experiences would get in the way of just being able to enjoy the movie.  While there were moments where I worried whether this movie's Dickens would lose a page or miss a deadline, the direction, editing, and writing of this movie quickly assured me that these common plot elements had no place here and would not be making any appearances in this film.  With only a fleeting moment or two to give such a worry place in mind, the worries were quickly dispelled, and I was happily able to just enjoy this movie.

This "retelling" of A Christmas Carol was well done.  It was nice being able to just follow Dickens's story along as he was creating it, and the interspersion of London came at welcome intervals.  There was a good balance of up and down moments, and of serious and comical story threads.  The music played to this wonderfully well--"amusing" music lest we take ourselves too serious for too long, and tugs of more serious tones lest the movie get too shallow or too silly--tugs assisted by art direction, of course.

I enjoyed seeing Mrs. Dickens' listening in.  Make-up/costuming with Dickens's red, sleep-lost eyes was noticed and appreciated.  The bright red cover of the finished book at the end.  Just the right length of movie, and suitable end credit music to help the audience reluctantly leave the world of Dickens to return home.  The two screens of historical note material was probably the best way to have done that--although, the movie did end with the line of eager customers at the store--a cozily lit store surrounded by snow and closed businesses--and a reading of the newspaper review in the Christmas-y parlor.

Well done.  Merry Christmas!

"Wonder Woman" (2017)

Well, I've finally seen it.  Finally watched this movie.  And it took me a while because I was quite conscious of all the hype that was made about this movie when it originally came out.  As such, I think this response needs two parts.

First, the movie itself--just as it is:  a movie.  Plot was fine--nothing elaborate.  Characters weren't flat, but basic.  The action/fight sequences were fun to watch.  And all the other aspects--set, costume, music, etc.--quite adequate.  Good even.  High points of quality:  the action sequences, and the way Gal Gadot carried Diana--her poise, her bearing, her charisma.  As a movie, I'd give it an 8 out 10, maybe even 8.5.  But as far a movie goes, I don't know that there's too much more to say.  The movie seems to hang it's hat on the action sequences--and if it was merely aiming at a good action movie that carried out DC's conception of Wonder Woman for a modern audience, then it was successful.  Quite successful.  Well done.

But I can't help noticing that the second part of this response colors the my thoughts on the first, and in that respects, I was quite disappointed.

The second part of this response is all the things that surrounded this movie when it came out.  There was a great deal of hoopla at the time.  The movie was being touted as a celebration of women.  There was even a little bit of controversy as some movie theaters held the first showing of the movie for women only (and some of the men didn't like being excluded).  And a few of those who saw it came out of the theater vindicated and ecstatic that the movie was a celebration of women. 

So, maybe all of this set the movie up for higher expectations within me--higher than it should have, higher than what may be was realistic. 

I can see that if a person wanted to see women as equal to men--as better than men--then, I suppose the movie accomplished that.  But what does that mean?  Within this movie, it means they gave a woman the bigger weapon, the better skills, and the higher success rate than the male characters. 

Is that a celebration of women?  That sounds more like trying to make a woman become a man, not celebrate being a woman. 

Oh, I know.  There are those who would say, "I am tired of seeing men get all the laud, and women being lowered..." [or whatever adjective would be chosen to be put there].  "...and it was time to show that women could be a hero/heroine just as much as men."  I still can't help feeling like something's been lost.  It's kind of like the old story of a woman climbing the business ladder only to find that what it took to climb ladder (male tactics) made her lose all the qualities that made her uniquely a woman.

If I'm looking at this movie as a story, as a movie, then it was a good movie--8 or 8.5 out of 10.  If I'm looking at this movie as a "celebration of women," then I think it is a failure.  I think that there needs to be a better movie that can celebrate those things a woman can do that a man can't, and that would be a "celebration of women."  I can think of several movies plus a few characters that do a better job on that front.  Ocean's Eight pulls off fashion, smarts, the ability to blend in, and most importantly collectivity--almost a sisterhood--between the characters.  That's something you'll find in the female aspects of our society  Even The Single Moms Club does a much better job celebrating what makes women unique and wonderful. 

It's also one thing to be brave when you're invincible.  It's another thing to be brave when you're not.  Think of the character Narcissa Malfoy who for the love of her son has the nerve to ask someone trying to look dead if her son is alive and then turn and lie to Voldemort about it.  Talk about a gutsy woman.  As for action scenes, we have that too:  Turn to Lara Croft to find a way to take an action sequence and make it over into a woman's style, and not just give the girl a bigger "gun."

So if you're looking for a page out of the comics brought to life, if you just want to see a woman "kick some butt," then this movie is great for that.  I'll completely support that.  But if you're wanting a movie to "celebrate women," then I think you need to keep looking.

"Ocean's Eight" (2018)

Having seen the other three Ocean's movies (still haven't seen the original, though), this one had me intrigued and it did not disappoint. 

I came across it on a Mother's Day display, and it caught my attention.  It amuses me that the girls could do their heist in less numbers than the guys and do it with their own flair.

It's a light movie, but that's what it was meant to be.  Would love to have seen a few more personality moments, though, from each of the eight.  I mean, we have come a ways from the original TV show Charlie's Angels where the girls are just active figures with no distinguishing personality traits, right?  Right?

I did enjoy the runway exit for ladies displaying the re-cut jewelry and their fancy garb, but I'm afraid my "I want to re-watch that moment" might be limited to Awkwafina's stall sprawl and a few other of her smooth moves such as her pocketing this and depositing that.  Maybe Rose Weil's Met Gala outfit.

That said, I do recommend this movie as a good watch, worth the time.

"Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald" (2018)

Too dark to feel satisfying.  Yet, too well written to not appreciate it.  Complete, yet unresolved.  Yeah, it's a second movie.  I once asked if there was a book that was the second in its series that was as satisfying as the first in its own right.  I gathered from the response that such examples are far and few between.  I think these movies have become the Charles Dickens serials of our day.  I don't think that's a good or bad thing.  Maybe mostly something to resolve myself to.  In any case, I almost enjoyed watching the author interview in the extras (and it's inside analysis of the movie) more than the movie itself.

This movie had it's enjoyed moments--Newt charming the zouwu being one of the top.  It's frustrating aspects are minimal, mostly limited to the tendency of so many characters to mumble.  I can understand it as a character characteristic and a style choice, but if the audience (me) can't understand it without multiple rewinds and/or subtitles, then how much is it actually communicating?  If anything, having to resort to such actions pulls me out of the movie's story.  Aside from often wondering "what did he say?" Newt's character's personality is still endearing.  Guess I can't have it both ways.

I did enjoy all the "name-dropping" of people and elements to tie in to the later-set-period of Harry Potter.  That made watching the movie somewhat of an "Easter Egg" hunt, which was enjoyable.

What I still hope for in future movies:  more "sneaky peaks" (okay, ANY peak) into the world of Ilvermorny Houses and culture, both with students and alumni; that the wonder of the magical wizarding world shows up more thoroughly in the next movie (more than just fancy entrances into places); and that all the loose ends in the Fantastic Beasts series gets satisfactorily tied up.

That said, would I recommend this movie?  Sure.  But, unless you're a "die-hard" Harry Potter fan, you might wait until you can watch all three movies in close succession.

"The Hunger Games" (2012)

I don't think I've gotten hooked into full fledged dystopian literature.  I just dont't think it's my thing.  Nevertheless, this novel and movie I've found do-able, and I was quite pleased with this adaptation.

A few years I tried watching this movie without having read the book first--something I don't normally do--but I didn't get very far in the movie before giving up on it.  I'm not sure if that's because it was dystopian or if it's because I hadn't read the book first.  Maybe I am a "book first" kind of gal. 

This adaptation was done very well--the costuming, the special effects, the art direction for the different social classes in this society--and I thought the end credits music the right style to play.

I just think I'm not into dystopian stories, or perhaps just not found the right flavor of one?

I was pleased with how they balanced indicating the violence without being too graphic in it's telling.  I'm actually pleased they didn't try to re-create the fallen tributes into the animal faces.

I liked the bird calls.

"Beautifully Broken" (2018)

The flyer came around.  "War (blah, blah, blah)...beautiful story (blah, blah, blah)...Go see it."  I had my reservations that I'd love it as much as the flyer said I would, but it was high on the local culture's radar, so I tagged along, unsure of how much I would enjoy it, but thought it would be good to at least be a part of this piece of local activity.  At very least I'd be able to say, "Yeah, I've seen it."

I was wrong.  I very much enjoyed this movie.  It is very well done.  Part of the local excitement is that the movie's director has local roots.  They have done well to be excited.

The story is very well done:  not so much gore shoved in the audience's faces that we needed to put defenses up to get through the movie, but enough hints and skirted images that we both knew what was going on and couldn't ignore it.  The weaving of the different story threads was well balanced and cut/edited well. 

I don't know that I'd call the story "faith-centered" because I think that term is part misleading for what this movie is and part mixed with preconceptions about what such a movie with that label would be.  I think "faith-laced" is better.  It's how my life works--not just "Jesus on Sunday morning," but Jesus and God and faith interlaced throughout all my week, through all parts of my life--or at least I'd like to think it is.  I'm a sinner along with the best of hypocrites, just never far from God's forgiveness either.  And that's where this movie does the faith-lacing well.  It successfully departs from the faith-genre-acting style that comes across canned to me.  This is acting in the style of real-life, and brings faith into its life situations as faith should in real-life.

And it's point?  It's not the salvation pounded out in same-new ways.  It's the message of how God likes to take the broken pieces and do beautiful things with them because He can.  Because He does.  Because broken He can work with because it shows His beauty and strength.  Which, oddly enough, is the title of the movie.

Go figure.

Final tidbits:  the ending scenery of Rwanda is beautiful.  I'm not sure, but it looked like the theme song was performed by at least three different singers (neat!).  The story is based on a true story.  How much of the movie is a true and how much adjusted for movie telling purposes?  I can't say, but I can say that I recommend this movie.

I don't know how widespread this movie's distribution is, but if you're looking for a beautiful, "decent" (it goes beyond decent--good is the word here) movie that supports a beautiful idea (that God uses broken things in beautiful ways), then consider going to your local movie theaters and requesting this movie come.  Then spread the word to everyone you know to go see it.  I think it is worth supporting this movie.

"Ready Player One" (2018)

I know, I know. "But in the book, ________ was my favorite part, and it wasn't in the movie."  Admittedly, even I will have to watch the movie a second time to enjoy it on it's own terms.  But the author of the book co-wrote the film, and co-produced the film.

That's not exactly ammo from the book against the film.  That's ammo for taking the book's ideas and looking at them fresh.  A film adaptation for it's own merits.  And in looking at those merits, the film stayed true, generally speaking, to the spirit of the book.

Now, the film.  On it's own merits.  (Because I haven't taken yet to posting book reviews online--at least, nothing regular.)

Story/plot--condensed well enough to keep a good hook to see what would happen next.  Successfully including surprises (even for those who read the book).  Seemed like there were one or two holes, though.  At the time, wondering how Wade's hideout was discovered was one "wait a minute" moment.  But the answer was there, subtly placed, earlier in the film.  How the high 5 hacked into Sorrento's rig was explained, but I'm not sure I was sold on that answer.  Maybe a second just-enjoying-it-now-that-I -know-what's-coming will sell me on the first time's hesitation.

Looking back at the "leave the stacks while you still can" after seeing the events unfold wasn't a line that made sense to me, nor fifty people standing there with one guy with a gun.  Nobody came from behind him?  Maybe I missed some thinking/thought processes somewhere.

With all the possible 80s references to pull from, I don't know that I was thrilled with the grab bag of horror as opposed to other options.  That might just be me.  Maybe those who enjoy the horror genre felt the movie was more balanced in it's 80s references???  I dunno.  Someone will have to tell me.

I'm thinking the music choices generally worked, with a few that were definitely "nice touches."  "Stayin' Alive" comes to mind.

Do I recommend the movie?  Yeah, I do.  But if you read the book first, go in with a blank slate and open mind.  In fact, what you know from the book might even trip you up.

If you have neither read the book or watched the movie, which would I recommend enjoying first?  Actually, I can see it going either way.  So, I'm not sure it matters.  If you read the book first, then watch the movie, the movie will hold a few surprises even though you'll generally know how it goes.  Sorta.  If you watch the movie first, then read the book, the book will hold a few surprises for you even though you'll generally know how it goes. Sorta.  Either way, remembering that the movie is an adaption--not a reproduction--will mean that you'll get two fresh stories for the "price" of one story arch.  And that's not a bad deal.

"Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" (2016)

Newt Scamander's mannerisms are refreshing because they're not done absolutely everywhere.  "Neat and Tidy" plot, with a melancholy ending--but maybe it sets things up for the next movie while leaving the present story mostly satisfied.

Set in New York City.  Filmed in Liverpool, England.

"But I made them cocoa."

Was trying to remember which Hogwarts house was blue and yellow.  [Answer blue and bronze are the colors of Ravenclaw.]

Overall, enjoyed the movie

"Hidden Figures" (2016)

The plot for this mixed the different threads very well.  I'm still mulling over the music choices--they fit and yet they didn't.  More fit then not. 

While the film was done very well--and I'll enjoy watching and re-watching it--, I'm not sure I'd list it in a "top 10" list, and I'm not sure why/why not.  I still would recommend the film for anyone wanting a movie they could just enjoy watching, (and I'm looking forward to watching documentary commentary or accompanying interviews now that I've watched the movie).

"Wonder" (2017)

Very sweet story,  So well done.  The characters are real, not stock.  I like the NASA "3...2...1" sound underlying Auggie's first day of school.  I like the unique chapter view-from-a-character way that the movie used.  I can't speak to the book adaption, but I suspect that that was well done, too.

I recommend watching this with a box of kleenexes nearby.  Nice way to escape and be encouraged.  Well done.

"The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" (2013)

They did what they could in the time that they had, and I thought they did a very good job of it. Nevertheless, I'm glad I read at least two books of the series (the first two) before I watched this film.  They crammed a lot into this film.  And for as much explanation that the book got to provide, the movie handled divvying it up very well.

 A Canada-Germany film, which intrigues me. 

The use of Bach's music as a tool for the good guys was nice.  Yay, the good guys get to use music for a change.  And I'm glad they used one of my favorite lines from the book.  Evidently, they did too.  I can almost hear them, "We have to use that line."  And I was pleased they gave the author credit that the movie was based on her original ideas.

I think there was one or two fight scenes that I would've liked to have followed a little better, but nothing a re-watch or two (or whatever) won't solve through the marvels of rewind.

The choices for condensing story needs, and other choices that I am assuming were for budget constraints, I thought were done well and understandably made.  Well done guys.

"Songcatcher" (2000)

This movie was a story and concert integrated together--okay, so like a musical--except the music was integral to the story.  The music was interesting to listen to.  The story was interesting enough to keep watching.  The story wasn't necessarily an "award winner", but it was well-done.  One of the things I liked best is that all but maybe one of the musical performances were actually performed instead of mimed like is so often done.  If you enjoy folk music and/or Appalachian music, then I would recommend this movie as a creative concert.

This movie did remind me of Zora Neale Hurston's work to capture folktales.  That made it a pleasant connection for me.

"Mulan" (1998)

I hope someone somewhere favors Mulan because it really is okay.  For me, I enjoyed it enough to watch it all the way through.  But it seemed to be a re-hash of "been there, done that".  It's possible that this was the "original" and I watched it out of order, but more than likely it was riding the tide of fashionable "girl saves the story and gets the guy" stories.  Even the music didn't seem like it would be that memorable.  I say all this but I repeat again, it's really not a bad movie and I hope someone somewhere favors this movie because it really is okay.

"The Hollow Crown: Henry IV, Part 2" (2012)

Director:  Richard Eyre

Cuts the prologue (about the spread of lies); Falstaff's page is more "serious"--more as one on the outside looking in, as an observer.  This production has the advantage of on-site locations for setting.

This version seems to do a better job of tying the larger story threads together across the entire play.

Also, the initial arrest-attempt of Falstaff is humorous.  Eastcheap scene is bawdier.  The king's while-ill speeches are played with more temper and more reflective.  The character of Silence is played, at least part of the time, with a stutter.  Falstaff's draft was played more straight/serious.  Wort was played as a small/short person.  Falstaff faces much more how he is growing old as all things are changing around him--something he is at first in denial of and, later, reluctant to face when finally absolved to confront it (during his draft visit).  Prince John of Lancaster is played strong, and his distaste if Falstaff is clear.  Prince Hal upon viewing his father on his deathbed, while torn inside, is played with more certainty, with Prince Hal trying to steel himself to do what he knows is coming, what he himself will have to do.  The fight between Hal and his father, true, genuine, and its resolution touching and heartfelt.