#OpinionatedOctober - Practical Magic Movie Party

October 16
Practical Magic Movie Party at Alamo Drafthouse
Event
https://drafthouse.com/northern-virginia/series/movie-parties

Like anybody with a film background, I've known about Alamo Drafthouse for a while. I'm not sure if I realized there was one so close to me, but I am lucky to live in an area where even though I'm about 30 minutes from an Alamo, I actually drive past three other theaters to get there. I just hadn't actually looked into it before when I randomly stumbled on an ad for a Labyrinth Quote-A-Long Movie Party. Obviously, my best friend and I had to go, and we were instantly addicted. I've lost track of how many movie parties we've gone to in the two years since that fateful day, but for Halloween they were doing a showing of Practical Magic. This is one of our favorite movies, so honestly the only delay in buying the tickets after I saw the email was to determine which of the two showings we were going to.

The movie parties are always a good time, and this one was no exception. You get to see a movie that you love on the big screen (or introduce somebody else to one that they've missed) and they lift their strict no talking rules *slightly* for the event (you can quote along with the movie, or sing in the case of Labyrinth, but no conversations or heckling). The food is always good but a couple we've gone to have had themed drinks just for the occasion. I did not try the Midnight Margarita this time around, because I'd already picked out a shake on their Halloween menu that I couldn't wait to try (The Sacrificial Shake, it was amazing). You also get props to use during certain parts of the movie, and this time we had a scratch and sniff card to smell at certain moments too (like sage to help cast the spell on Jimmy). The movie party props are sometimes better than others, and this was one of the best sets I think. Practical Magic is just such a fun movie to watch at any time, but seeing it on the big screen again was awesome. And as the host pointed out before the movie started, it was apparently the 20th anniversary of the film's release. I came home to check my book of ticket stubs, and it turns out we saw it in the day after it came out back in 1998. And yet there was STILL a moment where I realized something I'd never noticed before.

If you've not been to an Alamo Drafthouse before: always arrive early. The 30 minute pre-show before the movie isn't one of those obnoxious "shows" full of ads pretending to be entertainment news or whatever, but an assortment of weird semi-related video finds from who knows where. Trailers for old movies, music videos from who knows where...it's always a weird, fun mix of stuff.

You can't talk about Alamo without mentioning the food. I didn't get anything from the special menu, but I just have to say the chicken & ricotta meatballs are always amazing. I still mourn the loss of the fish and chips (still the best ones I've had in years, haven't found any as good in another restaurant yet) but the meatballs aren't a bad go-to.

Hidden Figures (film)

This time last year, I was about a month into a project to do a podcast episode every day about women in STEM. And I'd recently discovered Katherine Johnson, and through researching her I discovered Dorothy Vaughan and Mary Jackson. I immediately added these women to my list of who I wanted to feature on the podcast, along with a few other African-American NASA engineers. Then not long after that, I saw the first news report about Taraji P. Henson joining the cast of a movie about Katherine Johnson. I found out about the book Hidden Figures, and I was incredibly excited. As the casting notices came in, I only became more interested in the film. I read excerpts from the book in my research (it hadn't been released by the time we'd done our episodes on each of the women, but the author's research was invaluable to our own).

Suffice it to say, this was a highly anticipated movie for me.

I was sad I wasn't going to be able to see it during it's limited release right after Christmas, but now I'm incredibly glad that I got to go on it's "opening weekend" because my ticket helped it become the top box office draw that weekend. Which is just amazing on so many levels.

But I'm here to do a review, so my review:

Go see this movie. As soon as possible. Preferably immediately.

The acting is amazing, the story is compelling, the art direction and design are perfect. As a historical drama, it hits all the notes it needs to. It felt to me like it didn't pull any punches, but it didn't set out to tell a tragic story but an inspiring one.

A true one.

And it accomplishes that with a skill and style that stories like this are rarely afforded.

It is above all an emotionally affecting movie. You feel for these women and you care about what's going on. In the theater I was in, there were cheers and applause throughout the movie, and a huge round of applause at the end. I've heard similar reports from people around the country, in many different demographics and regions. Audiences care about this movie, and it's easy to care. These women are inspiring, and not just because the actresses who play them are inspiring, but because they actually were inspiring. They've been inspiring me for a year now.

Even though I know exactly what the outcome is of the historical events in the movie, I still was caught up in the tension. And it was amazing to see a piece of history we've lost a piece of, a time when people came together to create science and math that didn't exist before. And the movie acknowledges that we did this because of fear of the Russians, but it also reminds us how much benefit we got from these geniuses, including the African-American women of the West Area Computers, being allowed to do what they do best. And they got us to the moon.

The movie challenges us to wonder what they could do now if we made that kind of effort again.

So go, just go. Go see it. Please. And take any kids you know to go see it.

Moana

I'm not one of those people who feverishly keeps up with every new development at Disney, but I do pay attention because some of my favorite movies are Disney films. I do have a lot of fond memories of the Disney Princess movies too, though that might be surprising to some who know my tastes. But the thing is, I really love modern princess stories. They have a bit of a formula, and a certain set of tropes. But the modern princess story can be really amazing, and thoroughly enjoyable when done correctly.

Moana is a princess story done correctly, and it is thoroughly enjoyable. It's also a fantastic example of the finest in the "Disney movie" style, as well as just being a really good film on it's own merits.

I knew that Disney was working on Moana, and I'd seen a few pictures, but it wasn't until the first trailer was released that I started to get really interested. And it didn't hurt that Dwayne Johnson was involved, and posted a video of him recording his lines as Maui as a message on The Rock Clock.

Plus I just really was looking for a good, optimistic, happy story. I'm just in a mood for more good emotions in my entertainment, and it looked like it would fit the bill. So I made some time about a week after it opened to go to the theater, and I am so glad I saw it on the big screen.

You've probably read a million things about how amazing and lush the animation is, and those things are all true. Nearly every second is beautiful and inspiring.

You've probably also read about the songs but I'll take a second to talk about them because I can't believe how much I love the soundtrack to this movie. I haven't been this obsessed with a Disney soundtrack in a very long time, probably since The Lion King. I loved a lot of songs in other movies, but there's only one music cue in the entire soundtrack that I'm not 100% in love with, and that's because it's 90% instead. Honestly, if We Know The Way isn't nominated for best song, then the Academy is officially insane.



What you can also see in this clip is one of my favorite things in the movie, and that's the way they show the characters moving. I noticed it at multiple points in the movie the way that they animated dance and movements taken from traditional dances from Pacific Island cultures. I'm not a historian, and I'm especially not a historian of dance styles, but it's something that interests me and I was thrilled to see it peppered throughout the film. I had a similar reaction to the way that the traditional tattoos of their culture were discussed. This was a Disney princess movie where we not only see a character getting a tattoo, but between Grandma Tala and Maui there is a lot of talk about the significant of them. The fact that they didn't leave that out really impressed me, because I could see Disney wanting to sanitize that part.

The movie is fun, it's paced perfectly, it's got a good message (more than one actually), likable characters, and it elicits genuine emotions. Pretty much every metric I could apply to it, it passes the test.

I could go through and try to argue with some of the dissenters that have come out to complain about it. I especially would love to spend a lot of time taking apart the inane arguments made by the panelists on one of my favorite podcasts, but I don't feel like even acknowledging it.

Moana is inspiring, it's enjoyable, and it's just a lovely movie. I highly recommend it.

Captain America: Civil War

If I'm being honest, the moment they announced that the third Captain America movie would be "Civil War" I lost every shred of interest I had in it. Which is really sad because in the Marvel films, Captain America has been my favorite. Partially because of how amazing Peggy Carter was in the first movie, but also just because I really enjoyed the character and Chris Evans' portrayal of him. Which surprised me because in the comics, he's not my favorite.

But the Civil War storyline in general was one I found boring, and in the context of the Marvel movies it seemed even more boring. It also seemed to be playing into some fan-interpretation weirdness with the characters that I just didn't see in the movies. Ramping up to the release, absolutely nothing made me interested in it again. The trailers, the posters, the marketing hype, nothing drew me in. It still looked boring. I ended up going to see it because my husband wanted to and I figured well, it probably wasn't going to be BAD, just mostly uninteresting. Kind of like Age of Ultron (which I found kind of tedious despite some great moments).

Reading this you probably think I hate the Marvel movies but the thing is I really don't. I enjoy them quite a bit, and it's revitalized some stories that I'd gotten tired with in the comic books. There's a lot of great stuff in the MCU, and the casting is so pitch perfect that it lets a lot of other things slide.

Anyway, so Civil War the movie. The movie didn't really end up winning me over. The way I put it to people is that it's the second best Avengers movie, as Black Panther 0.5 it's wonderful. It's even got a few scenes that serve as a great Spider-Man reboot and made me want to finally get around to watching Ant Man. But it was not just the worst Captain America movie, it's very far below the quality of the first two to the point where I don't think it's worth considering it part of the same series.

It only just barely continues Steve's story, and it twists his character in ways that make no sense except when you think that the Marvel Execs said "we need X to happen" so well, they made X happen. Steve has plenty of faults, but lack of clear communication haven't been on that list until this movie (insubordination, sure, but he says what he means and elaborates on it well usually). Which is infuriating to me because his point of view isn't wrong. The Russo brothers have said that they didn't want either side to be right, which I think comes across actually as a cop-out, but the other thing is that in order to do that they basically had to make Steve have a good point of view and then support it with absolutely nonsensical actions. They've also been saddled with a storyline that has an enormous amount of historical context regarding the efficacy of peacekeeping forces/the UN and ignore that context so thoroughly you wonder if it doesn't exist in their timeline.

The whole thing comes across less as a "life is complicated and these people have complicated problems to figure out" and more "we wanted interpersonal conflict so everybody stopped talking to each other and acted like five year old's so we could make things go boom and have a cool poster."

There were amusing bits to be sure, and some great lines. The acting as always was great. But unless they go and put together a "Here, just watch Black Panther's scenes and let the rest fade from your mind" version of it, I probably won't bother watching it again.

Well, they can include Falcon being snarky to Bucky, that was fun too.

Princess Raccoon

So I am an acient dinosaur who still has a Netflix DVD account. Primarily because there's a bunch of stuff in my queue that isn't available streaming anywhere so I'm trying to work my way through it. Which is how I ended up with a few odd older films lately, because they've worked their way to the top of my queue and honestly I can't even remember adding them let alone why I did. Though in the case of Princess Raccoon, I actually can remember seeing something about it came out and thinking it looked interesting. Plus I do like Zhang Ziyi quite a bit. So I left it on the list, and then a few weeks ago it finally made it's way to me. Now, one thing that I have to say up front is that while I like foreign movies usually, I am not usually too big of a fan of surreal filmmaking. It's just not my thing. And to be honest, I wish I had paid enough attention before renting the film to know that this was a very surreal and abstract piece in a lot of ways.

Really that's the bulk of what my impression of it is, because the storyline is only sort of losely pursued, and it's so very basic and skeletal that there's not all that much to say about it. There's a king who is basically the evil stepmother from Snow White (literally asking who is the fairest and sending someone to kill his son when he discovers his son will soon be the fairest). The twist is instead of asking a magic mirror, he asks a Catholic woman who is probably meant to be a witch or a nun or both, honestly I have no idea.

The son of course doesn't die, and ends up falling in love with a woman in the forest who turns out to be Princess Raccoon (actually, she's Tanuki-hime, and a tanuki is not a raccoon, but that's one of those things not worth pursuing a rant about here). Men aren't meant to love raccoons, and so of course there is peril, a quest, somebody dies, somebody doesn't actually die, and so on. Honestly it's a very predictable story if you wrote out what actually happens, the thing is with it being so surreal it's the details that get really weird. "Now the raccoon lady is slapping her stomach to make a gong sound so she can battle the Catholic witch who is throwing paper streamers at her." "I think she was turning into a demon but the magic frog chirped and she put on her lipstick and now she's okay." Did I mention it's a musical?

The performances in the film were good, and it was a very well done example of what it is and the type of film it wanted to be. But it was just not at all my thing, and so I don't think I'll be looking for more like this anytime soon.

But if you like really, really weird foreign films, give it a try?

Avengers: Age of Ultron

I know, I'm very behind the times, but I only just got around to seeing Avengers: Age of Ultron last weekend. To be honest, absolutely none of the trailers or pre-release buzz really got me hyped, and then a bunch of stuff happened, so it took a while to get around to it. The short version of my feelings on the film were how I summed it up right after I left the theater. It's a mixed bag, but trending positive. There were a lot of things to like, a lot of scenes I enjoyed, and quite a few characters that I just love seeing no matter what (Hi, Captain America and anybody from his film series). I was surprised that I actually really enjoyed pretty much anything with Hawkeye in this film. Up until now, Clint has been kind of a non-character in the movies, but this time he got some valuable development.

I know some people probably disagree with my opinion here, but there's a particular spoiler-y development with Hawkeye that quite a few people hated and felt came out of nowhere, but I actually thought it was great. Could there have been more set up? Sure, if Hawkeye had really had any character at all in any of his previous appearances. Yeah, throw rotten fruit at me all you want, but he spent most of The Avengers mind controlled and then being angry about being mind controlled. That was about all you got. Instead this time we got a lot more out of him and I liked what we got. His sense of humor was really well done, and I liked it.

I know I'm probably a little biased, but I also really enjoyed all the bits with Steve. Captain America is clearly my favorite of all of them, so that's no surprise. I like his sense of leadership and responsibility and how he still is funny despite being very heartfelt. I don't know, he's just very much what I like in characters. He's what I always want Superman to be, very powerful, understanding the responsibilities that come with that power, but not breaking under the weight of it either. He's serious without being grave. And I think a lot of that comes from Chris Evans, who plays every moment with a lot of nuance.

But that leads me to one of my greater problems with the movie, is that there is a LOT of stuff there and a lot of it doesn't need to be there, or need to be as long as it is, because then they leave very good stuff on the floor instead of exploring it. Every character in this movie is shown their greatest fear, a vision that is meant to destablize them and make them unable to fight. Iron Man is shown all of his friends dead, Black Widow flashes back to her traumatic childhood, Thor sees himself as a destructive menace.

And Captain America finally sees VE Day, which he didn't get to experience the first time around. He's told he can go home, that the war is over, they are all finally done fighting. And Evans clearly shows us that this is just as tragic, and not just because he missed it the first time. It's because he knows it's not true, it's never true, they're never done fighting, and for him and his best friend and the love of his life, there was nothing real about going home.

How interesting is all that? I wanted to see it, at least hear Steve acknowledge it, something. But instead we get my major problem with the entire film, and something a lot of people are talking about, which is some sort of flailing attempt at romance between Bruce and Natasha.

I'll avoid the spoilers, but basically absolutely no scene about this particular pairing works. The characters have no chemistry on screen. I think both the actors were trying so hard to hit the beat that these are two broken people who aren't sure if they're worthy of a relationship that they didn't get anything else. There's no longing, no attraction, nothing. Natasha's relationship with Steve is so much more interesting and compelling in The Winter Soldier, so it makes this feel just clunky and terrible. I can see why the writers thought it worked on paper and wanted to try it, but they should have dropped it as soon as the first scene they shot wasn't working.

I'm not getting into the line/dialogue everybody is talking about right now and discussing if it's sexist or not. Listen, we can have all the debates we want about intention or context or whatever, but at the end of the day what's on the screen is all there is, and what's on the screen is a brick of a stupid scene that never should have happened, was framed poorly, and yes, came across as a very sexist moment and that I personally found more than a bit offensive even as I understood what they really were trying to do with it.

There are two action sequences that go on too long, but the final fight scene could have taken longer and I wouldn't have cared because it was well done. And the fight scene in Seoul was fantastic. Maybe it just took halfway through the movie before they started being more willing to kill their babies in the edit suite to cut down the fight to the important bits. Or maybe those two fights weren't necessarily chocked full of things that were there to sell toys to older comic book fans (I'm sorry the Hulkbuster was there because why? Sure, you could have it, but that fight was WAY too long for no reason besides OOH, HULKBUSTER). There are too many characters, and too many plot lines that aren't developed. There are too many moments, most of them centered on Iron Man, that are there just because "we need X to happen" and not because of something that felt really fleshed out and set up.

But in the end, I'm still thought it was generally good, I had fun watching it. I'd watch it again, but I wouldn't buy a second movie ticket for it.

Indiana Jones and the Adventure of Archaeology - Exhibit Review

I thought I'd do something a bit different and talk about an exhibit here in D.C. that I recently went to visit. I've lived in the city almost a decade now, and I've been to the Smithsonian Museums multiple times, and several other places around town (The Newseum, the Museum of Crime and Punishment, and so on). But I had yet to visit the National Geographic Museum, partially because there's an entry fee for their exhibits and with so many free Smithsonian museums around, you really have to have a good reason to spend money to get in the door of a place here.

But earlier this month I found out that they were going to be hosting an exhibit called Indiana Jones and the Adventure of Archaeology, which I'd actually heard of a while back and wanted to see it so I was glad it was coming here to D.C. That made it easy to buy the tickets, though I'll get into the price point in a few minutes.

Going into the Indiana Jones exhibit, I knew that there were some video portions because a professor from my grad school helped create them. But when the guy at the desk asked if we wanted the "video walkthrough" I had no idea what he meant. I've seen museums offer audio tour supplements for an extra fee, but this actually not only comes with the price of the exhibit but it's an integral part of the experience.

It becomes clear very quickly when you start out how this exhibit is very different from what I'm used to. The little video tablet walks you through how to use it (that's what video is playing in the picture) and basically instead of lengthy signage all over the items on display, there's a short description and a number. You type in the number onto the tablet, and it starts either an audio description or a supplementary video. This means that unlike a lot of other exhibits where there's a ton of overlapping sound and some things get very hard to hear, you're listening to your own headphones and watching the videos at your own pace. There's not as much sitting through the second half of the video then seeing the beginning as it loops back around.

I have two very distinct opinions about this. The first is that it was amazing, and really innovative. I actually know a slight bit more than the average person about exhibit design, since members of my family have worked at art museums, and I thought this was just ingenious. What a great way to bring in multimedia without being too overwhelming with it, and let each museum patron move at their own pace. Not to mention how easy it makes it for you to tailor the experience to your own desires. And I imagine that eventually they could use this for metrics data to see which videos are the most popular, and which parts of the exhibit people weren't paying as much attention to.

The only major problem this brought into the situation though is that it made everything take MUCH longer. I can skim/read a descriptive plaque in a few seconds, but when the audio is being read by someone I have to take the full 90 seconds that they're devoting to it and go at their pace and not mine. In a few parts of the exhibit, that started to really bother me, especially because I'm not the most healthy person and there just simply weren't enough benches and places to sit throughout the space. If you're going to make it take almost a full two minutes at every single item, then people need to sit down more often. Not because they are lazy, but because you need to think about your patrons who are disabled but aren't in wheelchairs.

The other issue was that the video/audio created bottlenecks at certain points. The start of the exhibit was actually kind of difficult to get through because we happened to walk in at the same time as several other people and we were all watching the same videos at first. It wasn't until I decided to skip a description that that pack of people finally was offset enough that we weren't bumping into each other. Basically in the end, I didn't listen to many of the audio parts because they were all pretty lengthy and I was getting tired, but I did watch all of the videos (except for one I apparently missed because my mom mentioned it and I hadn't seen that one, still no idea how I didn't see it).

The videos were great because they included behind the scenes footage, animations, and really fascinating extra knowledge. And I'm sure the audio had all kinds of extra info too, but I don't even really like listening to audio books so it just wasn't catching my attention. The videos held me more, and that could just be me (I am a filmmaker after all).

The exhibit was done in release order for the films, moving from Raiders of the Lost Ark to Temple of Doom, then Last Crusade and Crystal Skull. Each film was followed by a section on the science of archaeology that explained how something that Dr. Jones did in the film is also done in the field, while also debunking a few things that a real archaeologist wouldn't do. My favorite connection was after the display about Last Crusade, the exhibit had artifacts and real life examples of scientists using the context of the artifact to "decode" it's meaning and use, like how Indy "decodes" the grail to determine which is the correct one.

Each film was represented by a few costumes, some of the prop artifacts, concept art, marketing materials, and a few looping video clips (some of the only looping video in the exhibit, it was silent unless you typed in the number on your tablet, and it would then play the looped sound synced up to what was airing at the moment. It was a neat feat of technology). The costumes were fantastic, and the choice of which props and concept art was perfectly curated. The "artifacts" they had on display were exactly the ones I wanted to see, from the Ark of the Covenant to the Sankara Stones to the Cross of Coronado. And yeah, okay, there was some cool stuff from The Crystal Skull in there too.

The videos had a lot of making of stuff, and information that even as a big fan of Spielberg's films, I had never heard before. It was well worth the visit, and just the Indiana Jones exhibit would have been worth the ticket price for sure. There's also a lot of great branded merchandise in the shop, and for the price of admission you get to see their other current exhibit, Monsterfish. We didn't spend as much time at Monsterfish because we were pretty exhausted from the wonderful but time consuming exhibit, but it was also really well done. There were a lot of interactive elements that I think kids would enjoy, and a great opening video. I know I went on about looping videos, but they're not bad when sparingly used and this exhibit did them right.

The only thing that gives me pause about the whole thing is that we paid $15 for the entry fee, and while I have no problems paying that for the Indiana Jones exhibit, and I highly recommend it, until this week that entry fee only included Monsterfish, which was cool but not worth that much (I think the fee was only $11 at that point, but still too much). When this set of exhibits closes, will the entry fee still be worth it? I really don't know. It seems to me like it could be really hit or miss on the value, so maybe I'll keep an eye out for exhibit reviews before I go back there for anything new.

And if that's what you're doing then I'll just say again that the Indiana Jones exhibit is absolutely worth the price of admission, you should go.

How to Train Your Dragon 2

As I said in my review of the first film, I was really slow to get around to watching How To Train Your Dragon. I wasn't going to make that mistake twice, so I went to see the sequel the night it came out. I did make one mistake though, and that was forgetting that the creators of this series don't pull their punches. Ever. It's so easy to say "it's a kid's movie" and forget that some people are smart enough to know that kid's entertainment doesn't need to be stupid or simple or well, not emotionally devastating. The animation is, of course, beautiful. Hiccup, Astrid, and most of the rest of the vikings of Berk are hilarious and wonderful and multi-faceted.

This movie has a LOT going for it. Hiccup's inventions have only become more complex and amazing, and he's embarking on a quest to map out their world. He happens upon a dragon hunter who is delivering dragons to the unimaginatively named Drago Bludvist. Bludvist is of course building a dragon army for conquering the world, or something. Let's be honest, that part of the story wasn't particularly well developed or original. Was it thirst for revenge? I don't even remember.

Because the thing is, the real main plot here are the relationships between the characters we know, and one significant newcomer - Hiccup's mom, Valka. Hiccup and his father Stoick have assumed she was killed many years ago, but instead she's been hiding out and rescuing dragons, creating a gorgeous sanctuary. Valka and Astrid are fantastic, and should be held up as examples of nuanced and interesting female characters for other screenwriters.

Name any two characters among the main set (Hiccup, Stoick, Valka, Astrid, and Toothless to be specific) and their relationship is amazing, multi-faceted, and interesting. Stoick and Valka have something that is absolutely beautiful and completely unexpected in a movie of this type. Love of this type isn't really something that's shown in "kid's" movies. Or honestly movies at all. Hiccup and Astrid still have a relationship that feels like a partnership, and the two of them model something really positive that again, is rare for teenage characters.

But obviously the centerpiece is Hiccup and Toothless, as it should be. Toothless is absolutely the star, to no one's surprise, and he makes everyone want their own dragon. I don't know how to warn you about the plot without being full of spoilers so I'll just say this: be prepared for utter heartbreak if you love these characters. I was crying harder than I have at a movie in a very long time, and almost everybody in the theater was quietly sniffling. This is an AMAZING movie but it hurts, so don't watch it if you're looking for a fun, simple, uplifting time okay? This franchise is too complex for that, and yes that's absolutely a good thing but you know, full of tears. Hiccup goes through a lot of emotions, but for once he doesn't really have much time in the wallowing "I'm being a stupid idiot" phase that most male protagonists go through after this kind of thing. Seriously, sorry for the vagueness.

Now, the movie wasn't 100% perfect. Several of the side characters actually grated on my nerves more than a little, and Bludvist is really wasted and kind of boring (especially because they got the super talented Djimon Hounsou for his voice). And honestly there was one particular twist regarding Astrid that I thought would be awesome that they didn't go for, and I really wish they had. But honestly, I will be there on opening night for the third movie, expecting it to break my heart even worse.

Classic Film Review: Galaxy Quest

My local theater does these screenings of older movies called "Insomnia Theater" and a few weeks ago they were showing Galaxy Quest. I missed Galaxy Quest the first time it was in theaters, and I can't even remember why. I just don't think I thought it was going to be all that funny, it didn't come out in a time where parody movies were doing all that well. Let's be honest in generally they're pretty terrible unless Mel Brooks is involved. This was definitely my mistake, and when I was finally convinced to watch it (and I can't remember by who or how), and I found out instantly how wrong I was. This movie isn't just funny, it's brilliant. It works on multiple levels, and it's smart in ways that even now most movies don't even attempt.

On it's surface, it's simple. The washed up actors who appeared on a short lived but cult favorite tv show are mistaken for real spaceship commanders and brought into space to save an alien race. Even that's been done before, but usually with something that becomes much more serious. But Galaxy Quest keeps up it's level of humor and intelligence at every moment.

It's no surprise that these actors are fantastic, Sigourney Weaver, Tony Shaloub, and Alan Rickman are some of the best actors in the country and so of course they're fantastic. Tim Allen has some hits and misses, but he's perfectly at home here and does what he does best.

Of course this is an almost direct parody of Star Trek and it's fans, and a lot of people (Patrick Stewart himself included) have worried that it was at the expense of those fans. It isn't, at all. One of the hardest things to accomplish in parody is being a loving tribute as well as poking fun at tropes and cliches. Galaxy Quest is one of the best examples of how to do this well. Which is probably why many Star Trek fans talk about it being the best Star Trek movie, because it's the one that comes from the same place they do, and it represents not just the world of Star Trek but also the world AROUND Star Trek. And it clearly understands the universe better than certain other recent writer and director teams I could name.

In general, if you like science fiction or Star Trek on any level, you should have seen Galaxy Quest by now. But you also should check it out if you like humor, or if you want to have some fun with the behind-the-scenes world of movies and television. It's a lot of things for a lot of people, and it does all of them well.

The Last Unicorn Screening Tour

Last week on August 12th I was lucky enough to attend one of the screenings of the amazing new Last Unicorn Screening Tour. When they announced the tour last year, I was hoping that they would bring it to D.C. since most events like this come my way eventually. And they didn't disappoint, one of their first stops was The AFI Silver Theatre in Silver Spring, Maryland.

The tour is really fantastic for people who are fans of the movie, and I would suggest to anyone who is a fan of fantasy or animation as well. Or even 1980's movies, since it was shown as part of a retro 80's lineup at AFI. They're actually showing a brand new digital print of the film, so it's clearer and more gorgeous than has been seen on screens since 1982 when it premiered. I actually asked my mom and she told me that we didn't go see it in the theater when it came out, so this was my first time seeing it on the big screen. It was very beautiful, and like all good films there are a lot of things that you'll probably discover that you'd never noticed before.

The best part though is that the author, Peter S. Beagle, was there to do a Q&A session after the show as well as sign items and meet fans both before and after the film. I've actually met Beagle before, several years ago at Dragoncon in Atlanta, Georgia. I bought a new copy of his first book, A Fine and Private Place, and spoke to him for a while about why I loved it and how it reminded me of some very specific good memories. Meeting him was one of my favorite experiences at that convention, because he really took the time to talk and came across as a very genuine and charming person. But I had been under the assumption that I had been lucky to come to his table when there wasn't a line, and that's why I got the personal attention.

I learned last week that this wasn't the case, it's actually that Beagle is always wonderful to his fans. He will take the time to talk to you, learn a bit about you, tell you a story, and make you feel like the most important person in the entire line. This time we talked about screenwriting, and he gave me the best piece of advice about the film industry I've ever heard: "Just be patient. If you're patient, you'll outlive the bastards." It's my new motto.

Photo from lastunicorntour.com

The Q&A was also wonderful, he spoke about several other books he had written and his experiences throughout the years as an author. I hadn't realized how many different types of writing he had done, or how often his works have been adapted to other formats. I really enjoyed him telling a story about why he wrote "Come Lady Death." Apparently, he was in a writing workshop with someone who hated fantasy in all it's forms. When another woman wrote a fantasy story, this other member of the group ripped into it simply because of it's genre. So Beagle went home and wrote the best fantasy story that he could to submit for the next week. He said that the other gentleman grumpily told him it was a well written story, but that he hated it anyway. "He also taught me that I could write a story in a day and a half if I was angry enough."

I've had some similar experiences in writing workshops, so I definitely appreciated the sentiment.

There was also a raffle and giveaways of I think five or six items, mostly copies of Beagle's books. I didn't win anything but I was okay with that because the bulk of what was given away I already owned (and I had several in my bag at that very moment to get signed later).

The tour is going to be in Southern California next, and some of the shows are sold out but you can still get tickets to a few at the tour's website. I spoke briefly with Connor Cochran of Conlan Press and he said that they hope to return to many of the cities where they've brought the tour because often people have found out about the screenings too late to get tickets, and they've been sold out in quite a few cities. So keep your eyes peeled, they may come to your city and if you missed it they might come back and give you a second chance. It's well worth it. Just make sure you give yourself plenty of time for the autograph line, so that everybody gets their one on one time (including you!)

Red

Since Red 2 was coming out in theaters, I thought it might be time for me to finally watch the first film. I had been interested in it because the original trailers were rather funny and it was a movie full of actors that I always enjoy. Just having Bruce Willis usually means I'll at least give it a try. I'm also a pretty big fan of action films, in general, though there are some tropes of the genre that I'm getting more than a bit tired of. Excessive chase sequences being one of them (just wait until I review Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, I'll rant about it then). But I was really pleased to see that Red didn't really fall into very many of those cliches. It was pretty refreshing, and made it a really enjoyable evening.

The story gets going quickly, and while some of the action sequences are really not at all believable, at the same time I was willing to let them get away with it because the characters were so much fun and the actors are really into it and giving it their best.

Pretty much everything comes together well, from the direction to the cinematography, and the special effects are especially well done. The plot itself is almost secondary, it's kind of a standard "the secret agents have been betrayed by somebody taking over the government behind the scenes." It's sometimes pretty predictable actually, but there's a great sense of sarcasm and fun to everything that happens. The writing isn't good because of the action things that happen, but the clever dialogue and excellent characters, it makes me wonder how much of that came from the original comic and how much was the screenwriter or even the actors.

I don't have too many specific things to day because so many things worked well. It's a great film, anybody who likes action films should give it a shot. I'll definitely be watching the sequel, though I wonder if it's possible for the next movie to even approach this kind of experience. It seems like the first one was a great contained piece, so I don't know that I even wanted a sequel, but I'm not unhappy that it exists.

Classics: Adam's Rib

I have no idea why, but for some reason I had it in my head that Adam's Rib was actually a screwball comedy. Perhaps it's just because it was made around the same time and featured a married couple as the lead characters. I mention this only because the fact that it actually was a rather earnest drama with quite a bit of comedy mixed in threw me because it wasn't what I was expecting. In fact nothing about the film was what I expected, and I don't know whether that changed my opinion of it or not. I've been hearing about it for decades, but I had only recently gotten around to watching it, and my delay wasn't for any particular reason so my reasons for watching it weren't that strong either.

Part of the issue is that it's a film that's often touted as being very feminist. Some of the scenes in the film are in fact very feminist in nature, and taken completely out of the context of the movie are quite impressive for their time since they are arguments we're still having. When Heburn's character talks to her secretary about the different opinions when a man cheats versus a woman cheating, it's a double standard woman are still struggling against now, over 50 years later.

The basic plot is that a working class woman has shot her husband and injured him. A pair of married lawyers have taken up the opposing sides of the case, Spencer Tracy plays the prosecuting attorney Adam Bonner, and Katharine Hepburn the defense, Amanda Bonner. Throughout the film the case causes them tension both inside the courtroom and at home, as they struggle to reconcile what their differences of opinion mean about their own ability to relate to each other.

On some levels it's a great story and the characters are interesting, their relationships compelling. It's almost redundant to say that Hepburn and Tracy have amazing chemistry. On other levels, it doesn't hold up to the passage of time because it becomes just a little bit more obvious how it's not actually as feminist as you might think. It's more what comfortable rich woman played at for feminism in the 1950's, where they were allowed to be loud and a bit bossy as long as at home they submitted to their husbands and had their quaint dinner parties and were still appropriately feminine.

Getting into why that bothered me is opening a huge can of feminist history worms, and talking about the differences between first wave and intersectional feminism and on and on. But suffice it to say, as the film went on it stopped working for me. Especially considering the character of Kip, a client of Amanda's that is smarmy and in love with her and she thinks the attention is wonderful. Everything about the way Kip interacts with Adam and Amanda is a bit gross and old fashioned, and it starts to really annoy me before the film is over. So much so that by the time we get the traditional romantic comedy reconciliation, I actually didn't care if they got back together because they'd both behaved so poorly in relation to the Kip situation that I didn't know if they deserved a happy ending.

SPOILER ALERT FOR THE LAST SCENE IN THE FILM

I also thought that having Adam end the film by claiming that he was fake-crying at the accountant's office to win Amanda back was just a very gross way to end the story, and by having her accept it as a loving gesture means that it negates much of what the film was supposed to be about. The last few scenes actually rub it in that Amanda is actually wrong, that Doris Attinger didn't have the right to shoot her husband because even men shouldn't have the right to kill a cheating spouse. It basically takes the time at the end to put Amanda back in her place, as a proper feminist should always be just non-threatening enough not to upset the status quo and her actions should only be to make her feel better, or within the confines of what society deems acceptable.

I realize I'm probably reading a lot into the movie, and it isn't necessarily fair to a film released in 1949 to be analyzing it in this light. It was a product of it's time, and it was a rather progressive one at that I'm sure. I'm just really tired of the fact that this IS what life was like then and it's what life is STILL like now, and so maybe it was the wrong movie at the wrong time for me.

Jennifer's Body

There were three reasons I was intrigued by Jennifer's Body. First, because I actually quite liked Juno and wanted to see more by Diablo Cody. Second, because I'd read reviews talking about how it was an interesting horror genre take on female friendships - specifically toxic female friendships. And third, because I'd read that Megan Fox actually does a good job in it, suggesting her less than stellar acting in the Transformers films is perhaps not the fault of the actress herself. But to be honest, none of those things were enough to convince me to see it until recently, about four years after it was released. Really, it's a good thing I didn't go to see it in theaters because then I would have been disappointed. As it was, I was just mildly grumpy.

All of the reasons I wanted to see the film did turn out to be true. It is a movie about toxic female friendships, and that isn't something that's been mined properly quite yet, outside of perhaps Heathers and Mean Girls which became classics precisely because so many women recognized where they were coming from. And Megan Fox actually does do a pretty good job, partially because she was so appropriately cast, but it definitely bolsters the idea that perhaps the problem is directors not asking much of her instead of her not being any good. I've not seen enough of her movies to make a stronger hypothesis than that.

And the movie did have Diablo Cody's trademark humor and quirky dialogue, so there was that. The problem is that I'm afraid that either she didn't get as many revisions as she needed or perhaps Jason Reitman was able to give notes/make changes to bolster her strengths. Because at the end of the day, Jennifer's Body really fails. There are just too many balls in the air, and too much that either isn't set up properly, or is set up and then fumbled when it comes time for pay off. It just isn't structured well and it's trying too hard or maybe not hard enough, I couldn't figure it out.

For example, the basic plot of the movie is there is a band that wants to sacrifice a virgin to make a deal with a demon for fame and fortune. They assume that Jennifer is a virgin and sacrifice her, but since she's actually not, things go wrong and she gets possessed by the demon instead.

But since the sacrifice wasn't a virgin, then surely something terrible goes wrong with that, right? It's the core of the inciting incident, that they aren't providing the right thing for the ritual. What are the consequences for them? Nothing. Not a thing, they get their fame and fortune because it doesn't actually matter for the ritual, really.

And that's just one example in a movie full of things like that, where the writing just isn't as strong as it could have been. It's like a comedian trying out new material who gets a couple awkward chuckles from the audience and decides that's good enough and keeps using it.

In the end, the movie is at least a horror film focused on women, directed and written by women, so I at least am happy about that. And really, it is better than quite a few horror films that I've seen but the bar isn't all that high there. It wasn't a waste of my time, but it isn't something that I would tell other people to watch either. Let's just wait for the next one, I'm sure somebody could take this theme and make something amazing with it eventually.

Pacific Rim

Somehow, I managed to know next to nothign about Pacific Rim before it came out. I hadn't really seen most of the trailers, and mostly all I knew was that there were giant robots and giant monsters. To be honest, while that sounded fun it didn't sound like something I was going to go out of my way for, unless I just really wanted to go to the movies and that was the best thing playing. But a special trip to see it wasn't in the works or anything. Until my friends went to see it. This is the power of word of mouth - so many people I knew were so in love with this movie, and people who's opinions I respect. So basically I decided that I had to see it on the second weekend before I learned anything else about it. No spoilers.

It was a really good decision, because I really liked this movie. Honestly, yes, it is a movie about giant robots and giant monsters (called kaiju, if you're a fan of Japanese monster movies and Godzilla you already know this term). Yes, that is the center of the story, and also at the center is the fact that it is a film for, by, and about people who just seriously really love giant robots and kaiju.

But there is so much more going on than that, and that's what elevates it past other recent giant robot/sci-fi action pictures. Is it the plot? No, not so much, the plot is kind of paint by numbers and more than slightly predictable (sorry guys). But I didn't care, not because the action or effects were awesome, they were.

It was because the characters were just that darn great. And how many times have I wanted to stand on rooftops and yell at Hollywood that it's the characters that make or break their projects? Raleigh manages not to be the angsty emotionally damaged and thus closed off and cranky reluctant hero. He pays some lip service to not getting back into a jaeger (the giant robots) but at the end of the day he's got a good reason and he doesn't really hem and haw. He changes his mind and decided to go fight again and then he just does. Thank goodness for small favors.

Idris Elba is always amazing, but his role as the leader of the jaegar program gives him plenty to work with and he does what he does best. A lot of reviews are talking about how great the wacky scientist sidekicks are, and they are pretty great but didn't steal the movie for me or anything. Even the cocky pilot who thinks he's God's gift and the only one who can save the world who is destined to be taken down a peg by the reluctant hero is a bit more complex and interesting than he seems at first. And del Toro actually took the time to make a racially and ethnically diverse cast, because these people are saving the WORLD, not just America. What a concept, having representatives from all the nations bordering the Pacific? Who would have thought.

But the movie belongs to Mako Mori, and we all know it. I've seen a few people arguing about how they wish that she was the lead instead of Raleigh and I'm not entirely sure which movie they were watching. She's not a supporting character, so what else is she but one of the two lead characters? Even her fans are having a hard time breaking out of years of Hollywood conditioning. Yes, Raleigh spends part of the movie trying to convince people how great she is but there's no "but she's a woman" coming from any single person in the entire film. It's the experienced pilot urging people to give the young hot shot a chance, and that narrative is age old if you make it two men instead.

Quite frankly, I haven't seen a female character this good on a movie screen in a very, very long time. So many weaker writers and directors have felt like when you put a woman in an action movie you have to make sure to make her more feminine so that we don't forget she's a woman or something. We skip right over that here, and if anybody is being the more "feminine" character, emotionally, it's Raleigh.

And I can't wrap up this review without mentioning Mana Ashida, who plays young Mako in an extended flashback. She's barely even in the movie and she is, without a doubt, the most memorable actor in the entire thing. She is so raw and so emotional and so compelling that if you don't feel for her then your heart must have been pulled out or something. She was eight years old, and I can't even imagine how good she's going to be when she's older. That girl is going to rule Japanese cinema.

Overall, the basic takeaway from Pacific Rim is that it's a daring movie that tried a lot of things. It's got very few big name actors in it, and they're mostly supporting characters. It's not America-centric and most of the action takes place in China instead. Del Toro even has said that he made sure to establish that in most of the big destructive action sequences that all the civilians are safe and the streets are clear so you can enjoy the explosions without guilt about innocent bystanders. It's like a movie about world peace with giant monsters and robots, and it has a racially diverse cast with a woman in one of the lead action roles. And it's based on an original screenplay and a new idea the revitalizes a beloved older genre. Even if the movie wasn't any good, it would be worth your attention just for all those things.

But the truth is, it is really good. It's fun, it's funny, the actors are good, and the characters are amazing. It's going to be a tragedy if this doesn't earn some more money at the box office because everybody involved should be rolling in cash just for trying something new and succeeding.

Moonrise Kingdom

So, here's a confession for you: before this film I had never watched a Wes Anderson movie. I know, I know. I've heard all about why he's amazing and heard plenty of lectures about why I should have picked up The Life Aquatic or The Royal Tennebaums, but to be honest nothing he's done before has really caught my eye and made me go "that, that looks like the kind of movie I'd appreciate spending two hours with." I can't even quite put my finger on why, perhaps because I don't like quirky for the sake of quirky. Is Anderson like that? I don't know, but all the trailers and clips I've seen made his previous films feel that way, and so nothing really was compelling enough to bring me on board.

But the trailers for Moonrise Kingdom had a lot going for them, and I'll admit adding Bruce Willis to anything increases my desire to see it about 300%. Maybe it was that the cast just had too many actors I love, maybe it was that the kid's summer camp story was more interesting. Maybe the jokes were things I found funnier. Maybe the guy cutting the trailer was better at his job than the other guys.

For whatever reason, I decided I wanted to see it. And to be honest, it probably was the best way to get me to watch a movie of this particular subset/genre. While the adult actors whose names I recognized all did amazing jobs, I was actually most impressed by Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward as the young couple who decides to run away together. Their performances might be the type to turn off some people, but there was an unnaturalness to their delivery that actually made them more likeable to me, and I think that they stole the show at every opportunity.

It didn't hurt that the characters had a lot of moments that reminded me of myself, or people I've known, or my own weird childhood running around reading fantasy books and pretending the world was different. It just had so many things that seemed to be out of the books I would read about scout camps (my own experiences with camp were quite different) and it was presented in a way that made me feel nostalgia for something I never actually experienced.

The story is weird, that is certainly true. On paper, you could write a synopsis and it actually would sound rather tame. I read the plot summary on Wikipedia just now and sure, everything it says is true. That is the action of what happened.

But Moonrise Kingdom isn't a movie that's about what happens. That's not really what's memorable about it at all. For one, it's one of those pieces that film students love because it's just so artistic. There's a very distinct feeling and theme to all of the visuals, and it's like every small detail was chosen with care. But also there's a slight absurdity to everything, the dialogue and the situations, that really define what the movie is.

I won't say that it's a film for everyone, I imagine it won't appeal to many mainstream audiences at all, because it is a bit odd, but it's a nice odd. People who want the plot to go from A to B to C and for things to be realistic aren't going to like it. But if you're willing to let it just let it be charming and beautiful and enjoy it for what it is, then it's well worth the time spent with it.

Never Let Me Go

I read the book Never Let me Go, by Kazuo Ishiguro, many years ago when it was first released. I wasn't really familiar with Ishiguro, this was the first book of his that I had read. The thing that struck me about it was that beyond the plot or the characters, he was very adept at establishing a mood. There was a very distinct feeling that you got throughout the work, a longing and a sort of bittersweet wistfulness. It wasn't long after I read it that it was announced the book was being adapted to the screen, and I had no doubt they could do justice by the story, the action in the film is relatively simple. There's actually not to many events, and so the challenges that filmmakers normally have fitting everything into the allotted time wouldn't be the real problem.

The real problem would be capturing the mood. Especially considering that the novel is told in first person from the point of view of Kathy (Carey Mulligan's character). First person stories are notoriously difficult because you aren't given the same insight into the characters. And it's really Kathy's state of mind that provides the emotions for the reader as they experience her life through her eyes and her memories.

The film uses one well worn technique for this - the voiceover. But Mulligan's performance and her voice are so strong that it works. The cinematography is beautiful, and everything truly does come together to really capture the same longing that you feel when reading the novel. To be honest, the plot of the film is not particularly memorable, and in some ways it's not even really that original. In a lesser filmmaker's hands, it wouldn't have worked. Just like a lesser novelist couldn't have pulled it off either. It's a rather typical love triangle with a science-fiction twist (in the novel it's less obvious until later, the movie spells it out very early on).

But the filmmakers made one very clever choice early on - the film never for a moment looks like science fiction. There is no sense of it being the future, in fact it has the look and feel of a period piece set maybe around the 1940's. That adds an air of nostalgia, a heaviness of history to it, that helps bring the audience right back to the subtlety of Kathy's mind.

It probably isn't a film that will appeal to everyone. The pace is quite slow, there is no real action and the conflict is very understated. It's a very internal film, and that isn't always going to be appealing. But it's a very skilled adaptation of the book, and the only fault I can find with it is that it reveals it's mysteries too early. The novel is one of the few instances where I believe people are better off knowing very little going into it, and that spoilers truly spoil part of the enjoyment. The movie doesn't have that problem, because the reveal is quick and painless and has little impact.

Queen of Versailles

It's been two years now, but when I was in the beginning stages of the documentary I've been working on, I was trying to explain the way it worked to somebody I was pitching the idea to. I told them that basically when you go to make a documentary, you go in with an idea of what you want it to be about. You make outlines, you probably write a script. You have this idea of what the story is going to be. And then that all gets thrown completely out the window by the story of what actually happens. There probably few more perfect examples of this than Queen of Versailles, where director Lauren Greenfield started out making a movie about a couple building the largest private home in America. Then the recession happened.

Greenfield did the best thing she could have done - she kept filming. As real estate mogul David Siegel's financial empire quickly dwindles, Greenfield's camera stays in the house. When they put their unfinished dream home up for sale, Greenfield asks difficult questions and gets realistic and heartfelt answers. There were moments that I began to think might have been staged, but at the same time I don't think that Jackie Siegel was the type of person to go along with staging. When she goes to the Hertz counter to rent a car instead of a limo for the first time, she asks what their driver's name is going to be. The guy at the counter is genuinely confused and doesn't understand what she could possibly mean. A lesser film by a lesser director would have set up things like that, but Greenfield doesn't need to. She just had the good sense to be there and keep the camera rolling.

There are things about Queen of Versailles that are very hard to watch, but not because it's poorly made. It's well structured, and shows a lot of skill from Greenfield and her editor, Victor Livingston. The story becomes this distillation of a typical American story, from rags to riches to rags again. David Siegel has probably never been poor before, but he shows very clearly that he didn't get to be rich by being stupid about money. Though the film doesn't shy away from showing exactly how he got to be rich, which borders on dishonesty in selling time shares to people who probably can't afford them. Part of how his business comes crashing down is that suddenly these couples they've been selling to who couldn't afford the properties in the first place find themselves unable to pay their bills, which leaves Siegel in the same situation.

But the real star of the story is the queen herself, Jackie Siegel. She's oddly likable even as she continues to be so completely clueless about money that you wonder how she's survived so far. Even after they've lost all their money, she continues to overspend and insist on buying extravagant things, getting plastic surgery procedures, buying herself $2,000 worth of caviar for Christmas, and refusing to sell off items that could help them pay for everything. She stands in her living room talking to her son, wearing an expensive fur coat, and he asks the time. She makes a joke about being unable to afford a watch.

The story becomes a strange cautionary tale, without actually being degrading or making fun of the Siegel's it gives a perfect example of some of the worst excesses of American culture. Jackie says that if she knew she wouldn't be able to have as many nannies as she wanted, she wouldn't have had so many kids because they're too much work. On the brink of bankruptcy, David gets upset that Jackie didn't hire a bartender or a server for a Christmas party. Jackie rides around the neighborhood in the back of her limo, discussing the number of foreclosures in her neighborhood with her driver. After they have to let go of most of their household staff, the family quickly finds themselves unable to care for their own home, which Greenfield illustrates with a few too many close-ups of dog feces and a really tragic shot of a dead pet lizard.

It's a movie that at the same time angered me and made me feel sympathetic. The children in the house really do seem just victims of their circumstances, and like they have better heads on their shoulders than the adults. So it's upsetting when Jackie points out that she's had to tell her kids to prepare to go to college and earn their own way and David admits in a separate interview that he hasn't' saved any money for their college tuition and they'll have to go straight to work. Even David's son from a previous marriage, who works for him, points out that except for one year of living with his dad when he was in high school, he hardly got anything from him and was poor most of his life. These people wanted to build a palace, the largest single family home in the country, and neither of them has ever had their own children's interests at heart.

That's probably the biggest tragedy of them all, and the film does a great job at capturing it, even when that wasn't what they set out to do.

Being Elmo

I really, really wish I had watched this movie ages ago when it first came out. But I didn't, so oh well. I put it off even further because I was convinced that recent events would color my opinion, but I actually don't think that was what happened. Let's pretend I managed to write this review a year ago. I would have opened by saying that I really admire Kevin Clash, the puppeteer behind Elmo on Sesame Street. I would have pointed out that while I never really warmed to Elmo, I never really hated him either. He was a well done character, I just prefer Oscar or Grover, because that's what I grew up with. I also would have said that I saw Kevin Clash once, at a book festival, and watched the way he and Elmo interacted with the kids that came for him to sign copies of his then-new book, My Life as a Furry Red Monster. There was something great about it, the way the kids reacted, the way he talked to them.

I probably would have mentioned how I thought that Kevin Clash was a great example of the sheer amount of inspiration there was in Jim Henson, and how great a mentor and creator Henson was. Clash has always talked with great respect about Henson, and that made me respect him, no matter what I thought of Elmo.

Then, of course, Clash recently turned out to be a little less respectable than everybody thought (no matter how the court cases shake out, what truths he's admitted to are still disconcerting). Which makes me sad, and I thought would make me view Being Elmo in an unfair light.

But the thing is, Being Elmo is a good documentary, but I wouldn't say it's a great one. To me a great documentary is one that reveals things you never knew, or where it could be about a person no one has heard of but still be fascinating. A great documentary could take your neighbor and make them fascinating. Being Elmo was handed it's topic on a silver platter, and it did well, of course. Technically, there's nothing to complain about. It's an interesting film and I'm glad I watched it.

Maybe I just know too much about Sesame Street and Elmo. Maybe I know too much about Henson from being a lifelong fan. Maybe it's because I have at least skimmed Clash's book. But the only revelation in the film is the very brief discussion of his relationship with his ex-wife and his daughter, which the film touches on quickly and runs away from like they were afraid of saying something unkind about their subject.

Which is another aspect I didn't think worked with the film, because everything in it was glowing adoration of Clash, it came across like he had produced the film himself. Everything was just so nice that the film became so very even that it stopped being emotional very quickly. You don't get excited when he gets to start working in New York because everything was already so good, you weren't worried that it wouldn't turn out great. Where were the trials? Where were the struggles? Well, apparently still to come, but that's not the point.

I suppose that is the one thing that colored my viewing of the film, because now we know that Clash's life is not, and probably never has been, perfect. So having this very pleasing portrait of him isn't just a little bit boring like it would be if I didn't know, but it feels more like a lie.

So in the end, the film is interesting, especially if you don't know too much about Sesame Street or Henson so that the information would be a little more new and fresh to you. If you want to learn more about Clash, perhaps this will give you a different viewpoint. If you just like biographies and learning about different people's lives, it does a fairly good job of that.

But if you're looking for something in depth, hard hitting, or with a good bit of conflict, this isn't a good place to go.

Christmas TV Movies Special: A Christmas Wedding Date

So a few weeks ago I reviewed one Christmas Movie we randomly ended up watching, Christmas Twister. Then a bunch of stuff happened and now just in time for Valentine's Day, I'll review another Christmas movie! Hey, at least it's a romance!

Anyway, on Christmas Eve my family and I once again got sucked into an Ion TV Original movie - A Christmas Wedding Date.

I wish I had as many fun observations of this one as I did for Christmas Twister, but sadly while the entire genre of "hilariously bad disaster movies" amuses me, the genre of "mediocre romantic comedies" isn't really entirely my thing.

See, I love comedies. I love romance. But somehow when you stick them both together I want to smack somebody. Probably because the premise of almost all of these movies is either a-rooted in a fantasy of what romance really is that is so unbelievable I'd rather watch a movie about massive tornadoes or b-designed around a hilarious misunderstanding that wouldn't be a problem if people got around to actually speaking for more than two seconds.

Listen, one of the first things I learned about screenwriting in grad school is that people rarely say what they mean. Okay, that's cool, that's probably pretty true. Except that the central conflict of this entire movie is that the main character left her hometown and her true love boyfriend to live a lonely career-woman life in the big city because she heard a rumor that he...did something with this girl she didn't like. I never figured out if he was supposed to have slept with the other girl, kissed her, or just was in the same room with her and that wasn't cool.

But anyway, this girl seriously gets up, ships out to another place, changes all her plans, and changes her entire life because she heard a rumor. If I recall correctly, she didn't actually see anything happen so there wasn't even a misunderstanding on that level. Maybe I should have said "spoiler alert" since you're probably not supposed to know that it was a misunderstanding until he explains that it never happened in the third act, but come on, was there any doubt, ever? Seriously? Then you've never seen a romantic comedy. When you base your entire story on something so weak and contrived, and something that could be cleared up any second by the protagonist just saying "I didn't appreciate you sleeping with/kissing/making eyes at that other girl" then your movie is shaky to begin with.

The hilarious thing though is that I haven't actually told you the gimmick. See, this is a "Groundhog's Day" story, only with Christmas! And a wedding! Every science fiction show since Groundhog's Day has had an episode with the premise so you're probably used to it: protagonist has to repeat the same day until they figure out why they have to repeat it, and fix the cycle in order to magically be freed to live a better life. If you're curious, Stargate SG-1 did it best in "Window of Oppurtunity".

You've got every single trope possible for this kind of story. The character first blows off everything and acts irresponsibly, says all the things she's always wanted to say, is rude, etc. Then she decides to learn new things since she has a ridiculous amount of time to spare, and when she advances quickly (in the eyes of the characters not aware of the loop) she can impress everybody with her newly honed skills. She even is a bit weird and familiar with people who don't actually remember her, which is just awkward every time she does it.

This is, of course, all because of a guardian angel played by George Wendt who sadly never eats any beans. He wants her to figure out what's important in life (don't they always) and it turns out it's slowing down, and finding twu wuv. Sorry, it's finally admitting to the boy that you thought he smooched some other chick and him going "wait, what?"

Really, I try to come up with something nice to say about anything I review here but I'm kind of stumped. It's a story that's so done that you really have to either be uniquely interesting or be playing in an established universe for me to care. The acting is so-so, the romance is pretty blah. The script feels ridiculously rushed, and honestly I can't really recommend it even for "bad movie" value.

But I can say you should watch that episode of Stargate SG-1, it's hilarious. Probably funnier if you already know the show though, you'll get more of the jokes that way. "Maybe he read your report?"

Christmas TV Movies Special: Christmas Twister

So, over Christmas I was staying with my parents and they don't have cable, just an antenna. So there are only so many channels to watch.

Which is the best explanation I have for how we ended up watching two ION Television Christmas specials. I wish I had some better reason, but they were on and that was it.

And I like to review movies, so here you go.

Christmas Twister

It was 11 p.m. when we caught the first few minutes of this one, and I have to admit that it was at least compelling (or terrible) enough that we stayed up until 1 a.m. watching it because we had to finish it.

That's about the best thing I could say for it.

About halfway through the movie, we were still blissfully under the assumption that it was made in the early 2000's, maybe even the late 90's. The basic plot is that global warming (I'm pretty sure nobody used the term climate change) has created a new weather pattern, which is causing tornadoes to hit Texas outside of tornado season.

Our hero, Ethan (Casper Van Dien), is the only scientist who believes this is real, and he predicts that on this particular day in December they're going to get a series of deadly tornadoes. The cocky weatherman (Richard Burgi) is in climate change denial and isn't having it. He broadcasts a report that they're all clear and everybody can get back to whatever fun they're having.

Of course, Ethan's wife (Victoria Pratt) is the newscaster for the same station, and so he keeps trying to convince her to broadcast a warning to save people and you've got the standard Jaws "we don't want to create a panic over nothing/this is a business decision/this guy is just a crackpot who wants to be right" storyline going on as well.

All of this, especially the half-cocked global warming is going to kill us all/global warming isn't real conflict, would have been acceptable and maybe even a little forward thinking if the movie had been ten years old.

But no, it was brand new. We were watching one of the first airings. I'm certain it was rushed into production after the more damaging than normal tornado season in 2011. But everything about it was rushed and half-done, and there was a lot of inexplicable stuff in there. How does a girl so stupid she's never heard of the Fujita Scale (if not by name, at least having heard of an F3 or F5 tornado) but has an internship with a tornado expert and storm chaser like Ethan? I get that she's an audience surrogate character designed so that the experts can patronizingly explain what's going on, but couldn't they have done that with an intern at the news station instead of an intern at a science lab?

In addition, the second she asks the dumb question of "what about an F6" you know the climax of the movie is going to be an F6 tornado, and I don't feel like I'm spoiling anything by telling you that. I'll just also say that after they describe it as "like a nuclear bomb" the destruction that it causes makes no sense whatsoever.

Also, there's a point in the climax where everybody is freaking out that the tornado may turn and head for a major power plant. It does, and then nothing happens.

Who in the world thought this script was ready for production? There's a dog that wanders through the plot for no reason, the teenage daughter wants to have a redemption arc but doesn't manage because she wasn't that bad and doesn't really end up doing anything that good either. Some of the actors do the best with what they've got to work with, including Pratt and Burgi. Some of them are better left unmentioned and made me want to hurl the remote at the television.

The effects are mostly terrible, but par for the course with this kind of made for TV disaster movie. The logic and physics that they ignore are ridiculous, and not even so ridiculous that they're funny.

If you're a fan of laughing at bad movies, then you might want to give this one a shot. But I don't think it'll even live up to the standards of bad disaster movies. I have a hunch it's going to be largely forgotten, even by enthusiasts. It's value is mostly in a "I can't believe I watched that" kind of thing.

Since this was longer than I planned, I'll get to the next movie next week instead of combining the two. Something to look forward to! /sarcasm