Carl (voiced by Ed Asner, but he looks like a cartoon Spencer Tracy) is a crotchety old man, mourning the loss of Ellie, the love of his life. They bonded as children over a love of adventure and exploration, but as adults, they got caught up in the mundane and never chased their dreams. When Carl finds himself in danger of losing his house, he decides to make the grand voyage he and Ellie always planned. Together with an unwitting stowaway, Russell (voiced by Jordan Nagai), Carl embarks on a wild adventure to Paradise Falls. Along the way he tangles with his boyhood hero, Charles Muntz (voice: Christopher Plummer, look: Kirk Douglas), whose single-minded obsession with proving the existence of an exotic bird has driven him mad. Ultimately, Carl re-discovers himself through his experiences, and learns to let go of the past and look to the future.

Up has all the usual hallmarks of a Pixar production: excellent voice cast, imaginative story, great visuals, funny little additions here and there. It’s hard to argue with the technical aspects, since they are generally flawless. I will say that the Pixar schtick of giving animals voices without anthropomorph-izing (totally a word) them, per se, is funny at first, but grates a little after a while. I know stuff like that is tossed in to make the kiddies laugh, but it doesn’t amuse me, particularly. I love older children’s movies, so it’s something about the newer stuff that bothers me, but that’s another post for another time.

Partway through Up, I realized what it is that I don’t enjoy about Pixar’s ouvre. In most cases (and like most movies), they have a message. A moral, if you will. And that’s fine, but it’s Pixar’s execution that doesn’t sit well. Their films are too finely calibrated. It’s as though someone wrote a computer program with an algorithm designed to search out each and every concept that tugs at a heartstring, and then put that concept into play within the greater context of the film. Hit this mark, move on to the next mark. Charming montage of childhood sweethearts growing old together, check. Lonely boy with absentee dad, check. Appreciation for unspoiled nature, check. And so on.

I know this is not a widely-held viewpoint, but I didn’t feel like there was any heart or humanity to the movie. It was all too slick, too perfect. That perfection may be, for many, the draw of Pixar’s films, but for me, I think that there is a great deal that gets lost. Had actors been portraying those roles, there would have been a thousand little nuances to their performances that showed us their sadness, their need. In the case of an animated film, we are left to understand those concepts without really seeing evidence of them. An illustration can only go so far; it can only show human emotion on a basic level.

The Pixar films that succeed (for me) are the ones that are not attempting to delve deeper into emotion: The Incredibles is a cartoon action flick. Monsters, Inc. has a sweetness to it, but it’s not trying to go too far. Most of the others don’t reach the emotional depths they’re reaching for. I’m not trying to tell anyone not to watch Up, or any other Pixar film. I’m well aware of their success, and it’s cool that people of all ages can enjoy them. I even look forward to sharing them with my daughter when she’s old enough for them. But I’ll still wish that they were a little less perfect, and had just a little bit more heart.

Starring as Snow White…Lily Collins vs. Kristen Stewart

First things first. There are those among you (Hi, Ben!) who will be disappointed to learn that there will be no K. Stew bashing here. SW&TH is actually the first thing in which I’ve seen the erstwhile Bella Swann, and I have to say that I enjoyed her performance. She wasn’t burning up the screen or anything, but I thought that her bewilderment (perhaps natural) suited the role and that ultimately, the flaws in the character were due to poor writing rather than poor acting. Her “rousing the troops” speech was quite good.

Lily Collins, on the other hand, had more to work with, and capitalized on a great deal of personal charm. Her Snow was spunky, kind-hearted, and mischievous, none of which require a great deal of acting, but which she conveyed well, nonetheless. Like Stewart, she did not employ a great deal of range, nor was much needed. Her chemistry with Armie Hammer was weak, but since their relationship was hardly dynamic, it didn’t matter.

Winner: Lily Collins. Overall, she did a better job of selling the role and carrying the action.

As the Evil Queen…Julia Roberts vs. Charlize Theron

I’m a Julia Roberts fan. I know she’s not the most amazing actor ever, but she’s generally enjoyable to watch, and her turn as the Wicked Stepmother was no exception. I thought she was hilarious. She was snarky and appropriately vain, and clearly not a nice person. Since this version of the Snow White story was obviously meant to be a comedy, I think Roberts was a great choice as an actress willing to laugh at herself.

Here’s something that you may not have known. Ready? Listen up. CHARLIZE THERON IS TERRIFYING. In Mirror, Mirror, Julia Roberts makes the claim early on that it is [her] story, and not Snow White’s. That proves to be false, but in the case of SW&TH, it is Theron’s movie from beginning to end. She is chewing up the scenery like there is no tomorrow. If Roberts was willing to laugh at herself, Theron was willing to go full-on psycho with crazy eyes and snarling delivery. Her Evil Queen was literally the stuff of nightmares.

Winner: Charlize Theron. Girlfriend deserved an award for that performance. Seriously.

The Love Interests…Sam Claflin/Chris Hemsworth
vs. Armie Hammer

When I first realized that SW&TH was including a “prince” (Claflin) in addition to the Huntsman (Hemsworth), I thought it was a ridiculous idea. But, it really worked within the framework of the story. I enjoyed Claflin’s role, William, more than I thought I would as well. Both he and Hemsworth had good chemistry with Stewart (no, really), and William actually was a more developed character in some ways than the other two leads. Hemsworth wasn’t given a lot to do besides grumble and look beefy, which he did perfectly well, although I wish they’d just let him keep his own accent. One of the biggest failings of the movie, for me, was that what he and Stewart had to work with was not great. Theron was given all the good dialogue, or something. Maybe they’ll fix that in the (sigh) sequel?

Armie Hammer’s Prince Alcott is the exact opposite of either William or The Huntsman. Oh, he’s still beefy and heroic, but he’s also really funny. Hammer gets full marks for the scenes in which he is under a “puppy love” spell. Beyond that, he was a competent swordsman and has a fabulous speaking voice, but (as previously mentioned) had next to no chemistry with his Princess.

Winner: TIE. I really wanted either Hemsworth or Hammer to sell me, and they didn’t. The addition of Claflin was more interesting than I’d bargained for, but still doesn’t sway the balance for SW&TH.

The Dwarves

Ah, the dwarves. A necessary part of the Snow White story, but in this case, something of a controversial topic, which I don’t really care to discuss in detail. Briefly, SW&TH chose to use actors of a “regular size” to play the dwarves, whereas Mirror Mirror utilized little people (please note that the Internet says this is the PC term. If that is incorrect, please let me know). I don’t wish to be offensive, but to my mind, the rationale has a lot to do with the role that the dwarves play within the two stories. In SW&TH, the dwarves are reasonably serious characters, very similar to those of Tolkien. They are a proud people who have been cast out, and so they join in Snow White’s fight to free themselves. The dwarves in Mirror Mirror have the same motivation, but it’s a comedy, so they’re mostly there to be funny, and, well, there are notably few “serious” actors of a smaller size. Having said that, both septets are effective and enjoyable to watch. In the case of SW&TH, sadly, they don’t quite live up to potential considering we’re talking actors like Ian McShane, Bob Hoskins*, and Toby Jones. Are you noticing a theme?

*This is Bob Hoskins’ final film, as he has now retired from acting due to a Parkinson’s diagnosis. Very, very sad news.

Winner: TIE. Even if the dwarves of SW&TH didn’t have enough to do, they actually provided a lot of the emotional punch of the film, so they even out with the more-present crew from Mirror Mirror.

Visual Effects

The director of Mirror Mirror, Tarsem Singh, is well-known for his use of super-saturated color to produce striking visuals (see: The Fall). However, I was actually somewhat disappointed by the visuals here. Snow White and the Queen stood out from their surroundings due to brightly colored clothing, but for the most part, color was not a major player. Additionally, special effects were kept to a minimum (which I always appreciate). The Queen’s use of the mirror and a surprisingly creepy fight scene were the only notable exceptions.

On the other hand, the visuals were SW&TH’s strongest point (Theron notwithstanding). Director Rupert Sanders did a fantastic job of creating stark and striking landscapes, and while there were plenty of effects, they were never overdone or obviously computer-generated, which is a pet peeve of mine. All of the effects combined to provide a cohesive vision, from the Forest to the Queen’s magic army, to the magical creatures encountered by Snow White on her journey.

Winner: SW&TH. Visual effects aren’t something that I normally notice (unless they’re bad), and I was really impressed with these. Don’t believe me? Both films were nominated for the Oscar for Costume Design, but Huntsman got the nod for Visual Effects as well.

Script

As has been previously mentioned, SW&TH was seriously lacking in the writing department. The story itself was a great idea, but it fell apart when the characters needed to talk to each other. Dialogue was primarily used for exposition as opposed to character development, and as a result some of the characters were fairly static. This is often the case with regard to heroes and heroines, but they can still be fully-fleshed-out characters, even if they’re a little single-minded.

Mirror Mirror’s dialogue, full of snappy one-liners, was quite entertaining. Having some seasoned professionals like Julia Roberts and Nathan Lane around doesn’t hurt, but everyone acquitted themselves well in this respect. The story itself was rather more straightforward, and I’m not saying that the characters were any more developed than in Huntsman, but it was just more fun to listen to them talk. In a full-on comedy, it’s a bit more palatable for the dwarves to also be funny, and Lily Collins displayed surprisingly effective timing.

Winner: Mirror Mirror. It’s not award-winning dialogue, but it was totally effective within the context of the film.

And the winner is…

If you tally up the categories, you’ll find the two movies have reached a tie. As far as it goes, I do think that they were reasonably equal in terms of “tangibles.” Both entertaining films, solid B pluses. However. Remember that theme I mentioned earlier? Time and again, SW&TH reached for something greater, and fell just a bit short. I have no complaints with the actors. The film was great to look at. The story, with all of its extra interpretation and exposition, was a really fantastic idea. Unfortunately, the script just couldn’t live up to the idea. Snow White and the Huntsman could have been a really great movie, but it misses out on its full potential.

Conversely, Mirror Mirror isn’t trying to do anything fancy. It’s a semi-modernized, light look at the fairy tale. Everyone performs adequately, and it’s a totally entertaining way to spend a couple of hours (give or take). While the visuals may have been a bit disappointing given the film’s director, they weren’t bad, and didn’t detract from anything overall. Lily Collins, despite being a newcomer, manages to carry the film admirably well, and if you’re not a Julia Roberts hater, I think you’ll find her an entertaining, not-too-villainous villain. And so, by the slightest of margins, I declare Mirror Mirror the official winner of the Snow White Wars. Both movies are totally worth watching for the popcorn factor, and have markedly different interpretations to offer, but the lost promise of Snow White and the Huntsman was a sad disappointment.

You know what’s coming, don’t you? I don’t need to bother with much introduction. Perfect for a Monday morning, too. Happy birthday, Ms. Reynolds!

The movie: Singin’ in the Rain (duh)
The song: Good Mornin’

1. Ben Affleck
C’mon, the guy just directed Best Picture and pretty much dominated awards season. Somehow he’s on the ascendant. Gotta put him first. Additionally, his character, Neil, is possibly the best one in the movie, even if he is involved with Jennifer Aniston.

2. Jennifer Connelly
I love Jennifer Connelly. I want to be her when I grow up. She’s the movie’s other Oscar winner, and she gives the best performance. Her character’s sympathetic but somewhat unlikeable. I sort of wished that she and Aniston had traded places, but my husband pointed out that Aniston probably couldn’t have played the more complex role as well.

3. Drew Barrymore
Drew Barrymore pretty much plays Drew Barrymore here, but I’m still a fan, as you may recall from this recent post. I enjoyed her character’s arc: she was trying to figure out how to meet people in the “digital” age, what with Myspace (dated), PDAs, email, and all.

4. Ginnifer Goodwin
I think this might be the first thing I’ve seen Goodwin in, and she was pretty charming. Her character, Gigi, was naive without being annoying, and even managed a few decent dramatic moments. She’s also my current celebrity doppelganger, so she gets some love.

5. Justin Long
This is my first time seeing Justin Long as well (aside from the Mac vs. PC commercials), and I was actually pretty surprised. He also has one of the better characters in the movie, starting out as a bit of a player, but ultimately revealing himself as a good guy. I don’t think he was doing a whole lot of difficult acting, but that’s ok. He was fun to watch. In random trivia, he is the only main member of the cast whose name contains no double letters. Interesting!

5. Scarlett Johansson
Oh, Scar Jo. We all know she’s not that great an actress, but I do have to give her points for kicking some butt in The Avengers. She fits her role in He’s Just Not That Into You pretty well, too, although somehow I’m not sure I totally buy her as a yoga instructor.

6. Kevin Connolly
I really no opinion on this guy. He reminds me of Sean Astin, a little bit, and he seems to largely be second-string in rom-coms (he was also in The Ugly Truth). His voice is kind of annoying, and his character was a little lame.

7. Jennifer Aniston
Zzzzz. Sorry, but Aniston always just bores me to tears. She’s just so bland, although I do admit she’s generally good as the straight man (see: Friends). Her character is also kind of run-of-the-mill. I sort of wondered why Ben Affleck liked her so much.

8. Bradley Cooper-
Yuck. This is the first thing I’ve seen Mr. Cooper in, and he’s got the worst character, basically. This does, of course, mean that he did a good job, since I disliked him so much, but I just don’t get all the love. I find him extremely unattractive. He looks like an emu or a rodent, alternately. Maybe Silver Linings Playbook will change my mind?

It sort of sounds like a wacky rom-com, doesn’t it? There are certainly moments where the drama almost seems to be played for laughs. At first glance, Burton’s “defrocked” priest is an over-the-top caricature: often drunk, wide-eyed and indignant, feigning innocence when caught red-handed. Even in despair, he seems to be playing a part rather than truly suffering. It is in his quiet moments that Burton peels back the layers to reveal Shannon’s pain. Though boorish on the outside, he’s really a deeply faithful man who loves God and all his creations, but who sees humanity’s hypocrisy as the ultimate disappointment. He is a keen observer of human nature, able to cut others to the core when he lashes out. It is up to Maxine and Hannah to restore his faith in humanity, and they both make the attempt in highly individual ways that would seem to represent the struggle between emotion and reason. Maxine is a hedonist, but she has a good heart and seems to genuinely care for Shannon. Meanwhile Hannah is more aloof, but it is her cool rationality and quiet faith that brings Shannon back to himself. Both Gardner and Kerr fill these roles memorably; it was fascinating to watch two actresses, a little bit beyond their prime, use their age and experience to truly provide their characters with the right sensibilities. Gardner in particular is riveting as a woman who knows she is no longer young, but still relies on her sexual appeal and presents a facade of independence while fearing the loneliness of growing older. Kerr is perfectly cast as her polar opposite: Hannah is not without feeling, but she has made her peace with being a “spinster,” and fills her life with travel and experience instead of companionship.

The Night of the Iguana is something of a departure from the typical “play-turned-film.” There is a fair amount of movement and action in the first half of the movie, during which the tour group is traveling through Mexico. Even when the location settles on Maxine’s inn, something about the direction and the performances of the three leads manages to seem more dynamic than many theatrical adaptations. Although shot in black and white, Huston still manages to capture the lush vegetation and beauty of his location, and indeed is credited with putting Puerto Vallarta on the map as a tourist destination. The scenery adds to the heat and passion of the production; it’s easy to imagine the sultry night bringing out ugly truths and revelations. In the final estimation, the film belongs to its three leading performers, however. Burton does seem to be chewing the scenery at times, but I think that this behavior is a part of his character: Shannon enjoys the dramatics and is even called out for it by Hannah at one point. Kerr and Gardner are a match for Burton, and all three are greatly entertaining to watch. As with most Williams, there’s a lot going on here, and it feels as though multiple viewings might be needed in order to truly understand the depths that the film is trying to reach, but for good direction, cinematography, and excellent performances, you really can’t go wrong here.

And in case you missed it, I’m also on Twitter. Click on those links to keep up with my sporadic posting. And as always, thanks for reading!

Normally, war and post-war films are seriously depressing. Think The Deerhunter. Oy. But we were pleasantly surprised by The Best Years of Our Lives, which is #37 on the AFI list. Winner of 7 Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Director for William Wyler, the film follows three soldiers as they return home after World War II. Portrayed by Fredric March, Dana Andrews, and Harold Russell, the three men struggle to re-assimilate themselves into normal society and their personal lives. All three give impressive performances, with March and Russell both winning Oscars. Russell in particular is affecting as a young man who has lost both arms below the elbow. He really did lose both arms, and so was selected for the film to provide a realistic perspective on veterans with disabilities. As a whole, the film is amazingly perceptive (and still relevant) in its views on the amount (or lack) of concern shown to returning veterans. Hollywood has long had a “liberal” slant, and The Best Years of Our Lives definitely showcases that. Despite a “happy” ending, the film still manages to be affecting and sincere, and is even a little bit controversial in addressing concepts like divorce and extra-marital affairs. Co-starring Myrna Loy and Teresa Wright, The Best Years of Our Lives is totally worth a watch, even if you’re normally afraid of post-war films like we are.

Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

Oh, Wes Anderson. So quirky and charming. I think I tend to enjoy his films despite myself, and it’s possible that Moonrise Kingdom might be my favorite so far. This is due almost entirely to a crack cast that includes Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, and Tilda Swinton (SWINTON). These are all seasoned professionals, and you can count on them to be perfect. Still, the movie is not about the adults, but rather about a pair of young misfits, Sam (Jared Gilman) and Suzy (Kara Hayward) who find love and understanding with each other. Both of these young actors played their parts perfectly (keep an eye out for Hayward. I’m predicting big things from her), and their romance was so refreshing when compared to most rom-coms these days, which seem to focus mainly on sex and neuroses. For Sam and Suzy, their feelings are based upon finding someone who sees and accepts them as they really are. They’re actually the sane ones in the equation when compared with their adult counterparts. Great love story, great performances, the usual fantastic look and feel of an Anderson film…I might venture so far as to call this one a “must-see.”

Yeah, yeah, we’ve all heard these complaints a thousand times. “Why can’t Hollywood make anything new?” “Why do we have to have a thousand sequels every year?” “Why do they have to keep remaking classics?”

In my opinion, those are all really good questions. And the answer to all of them is: money. Studios prefer to stick with the tried-and-true moneymakers instead of gambling on a new, fresh idea that might not fly. If the first movie made a profit, then why shouldn’t the second, third, and fourth? And if everyone loved “The Nutty Professor” the first time around, surely they’ll love it this time, right? Robin Williams! Everyone loves Robin Williams. It doesn’t matter one whit that the first Star Wars movie came out long before most Twilight fans were born. Everyone’s heard of it, so everyone will talk about it, and hopefully, everyone will go see a new one. Heck, I probably will. You want new movies made? Don’t go see the same four or five rehashed and rolled out anew every August. But of course we all do, and we probably buy the DVDs when they come out, too. There are numerous manifestations of the commercialization of movies, and they’ve been around as long as the films themselves, of course. Who didn’t have a movie tie-in Happy Meal toy as a kid? There are a few “new” practices, however, that are really starting to annoy me, and I’d like to discuss those as part of what I think is wrong with movies today, as exemplified (in part) by the resurrection of the Star Wars franchise.

First of all, there’s this distressing trend toward stretching out a series (often “literary” adaptations) in order to fully realize the source material. Sadly, I think this may have started with the Harry Potter franchise. In that case, I do think the decision to turn the final book into two movies was a good one, although it could be argued that the first installment suffered from not enough action, while the second had the opposite problem. But then came the Twilight movies, who followed the same formula, drawing their series out to the very last, painful (so I hear) drop. And then, my friends, we have The Hobbit.

Now, thanks to my parents I was pretty much a Tolkien fan from day one, but I’m going to be honest with you. Peter Jackson’s Fellowship of the Ring trilogy was really, really boring. It was beautiful and faithful and all that, but it was dull. So when it was announced that he was going to do The Hobbit, I just shrugged. To me, it already sounded like LOTR 2: The Search for More Money, but then it got better. In case you were not aware, The Hobbit is only one book, and not a particularly lengthy one at that. But, the powers-that-be had decided that it would transition to film as not one, not two, but THREE movies. Apparently the use of source material and snippets of information from other works about Middle Earth would be added in to flesh out the story. Seriously? I’m not suggesting that this was all Peter Jackson’s idea (and frankly I hope it wasn’t), but this is clearly a grab for the movie-going public’s hard-earned dollars. Don’t you think there have got to be screenwriters out there who can shrink a book down into a passable movie? Let me just point out that Gone with the Wind is only one measly film, and that book has over a thousand pages. I’ve read it multiple times, and the film does a pretty good job of hitting all the important points. I’m pretty sure we could dispense of The Hobbit in under three hours.

Aside from dragging movies out, I’m pretty fed up with the concept of sequels in general. Sure, sometimes they’re good movies. Sometimes they’re even better than the original. But let’s face it: at some point, if they keep going past two, they all drag the original idea down into the mud and then step on it. But wait! That’s not a problem anymore, because now we can just REBOOT a series and start all over again! Admittedly, when Christopher Nolan revived Batman, he did something notably different with it, and that’s fine, I guess. But come on. Rebooting the Spiderman series after only what, four or five years? That’s blatant commercialism. And yet they’re already at work on the second installment of Spiderman 2.0. Where will it end?

Unfortunately, the comic book genre provides ample opportunity for sequels and reboots and replacements. I’m on record as being a big fan of Robert Downey, Jr. and Iron Man. I liked Thor and Captain America, and I absolutely loved The Avengers. But honestly, it breaks my heart that they’re cranking out more of all of those. There’s simply only so far up you can go before you inevitably go down, and I don’t want to see that. The problem is that they have to keep trying to top themselves by bringing in more heroes, more bad guys, more action. In nearly every instance, this leads to movies of lesser quality. The Avengers was so great. How are they going to top that? Why do they even need to bother? Sometimes it’s ok to just walk away, knowing you did a good job, isn’t it? Or maybe it’s easy for me to say that, since I’m not raking in mountains of cash with each new trailer.

The combination of all these factors, and the mechanisms that the movie-makers use to keep these machines running brings me to my final point. This is something that I only recently realized was making me really, really angry. X-Men 2: Days of Future Past. As I’m sure we are all aware, the original X-Men trilogy started out fine, but was a bloated mess by the third movie. So, in the tradition of such things, a reboot happened. X-Men: First Class was a surprise hit. I really enjoyed it. Naturally, a sequel would follow. The story is apparently based on a popular one from the comics, involving parallel universes and/or time travel, or something appropriately comic-book-y. From a Hollywood perspective, though, those types of things enable the moviemakers to work their own magic and bring back nearly everyone from the original franchise. Now, let’s talk about this. They rebooted the series, bringing in new blood (more on that new blood in a second) because the series had gone downhill, right? So why bring back the old crowd? I know everyone loves Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, but do I need to remind you all of the quality of his stand-alone spin-off? It was dreadful, although that isn’t stopping them from producing a sequel, either.

But back to Days of Future Past. I get that there’s time travel and so we’ll encounter some of the characters from First Class in their older incarnations. However. I recently read a story about how some of the stars of First Class were angry about the amount of screen time (and probably consequently money) they can expect to receive in this second movie. And I ask you: how is that appropriate? It’s only my opinion, of course, but shall I tell you what made First Class so very good? Four words. James, McAvoy, Michael, and Fassbender. Their characterizations of the young Xavier and Magneto were beautifully fleshed-out and flawlessly acted. Their changing relationship formed the heart of the movie. And now we’re going to toss that aside so Ellen Page can revisit Shadowcat? Hollywood, please explain this to me, because I do not understand. Never mind all the usual hallmarks of a sequel: more heroes, more villains, more more more. I think (I know you’ll correct me if I’m wrong) that fans would be happier with a sequel that maybe stripped things down and followed the progression of those two characters and their efforts. Since Magneto wasn’t actually the main villain of First Class, wouldn’t it be natural for him to be so in Days of Future Past? It’s not as though Fassbender couldn’t handle it.

It’s all just a way to grab as much of the potential audience as possible with little to no concern for things like story, plot, performance, or cohesion. The need to outdo everything that’s come before results in more movies of lesser quality instead of films that everyone involved can be proud of. I know that sounds like I’m trying to elevate the comic book movie to high art, but I think we’ve had plenty of recent examples to show us that the so-called “popcorn movie” can be about a great performance, or a serious and thought-provoking story line, without sacrificing the explosions and fight scenes. Similarly, I’m not trying to suggest that people like Fassbender, Downey, Joss Whedon, and Peter Jackson are not capable of creating something meaningful even in the face of rampant commercialism. I do think I’m safe in saying, however, that the honeymoon doesn’t last forever.

To return to the question of new Star Wars films, hey. I hope I’m wrong. The Star Wars universe spans a large amount of territory beyond the films, and so clearly there is great potential for new and creative movie-making. Using the names and themes already familiar to movie-goers isn’t a crime, certainly. The recent speculation about whether the original stars (Hamill, Fisher, Ford) will reprise their roles feels an awful lot like a gimmick, but ultimately, I suppose if audiences enjoy whatever the studio comes up with, it’ll be a win-win for everyone involved. At least until Episode X, anyway.

I finally got around to seeing The Tourist recently. I scoffed at the concept early on, but decided it looked like it could be entertaining, and that I liked Angelina Jolie and Paul Bettany enough to give it a try. Let me tell you: that was a mistake. This movie is astonishingly dull. Despite boasting a good cast and having a somewhat promising premise, there’s just nothing going on here. Johnny Depp stars as Frank, a milquetoast math teacher, dragged by international woman of mystery Elise (Jolie) into a world of intrigue. Bettany and Timothy Dalton are British agents seeking to bring down Elise and her elusive lover, whom they believe to be Frank. You’d expect a comedy of errors, some great action sequences, and an explosive ending, possibly with a twist of some kind. Instead you get Depp mumbling, Jolie struggling with an accent that has somehow deteriorated since Tomb Raider, and Bettany and Dalton looking appropriately embarrassed to be involved in the whole thing. There are very few laughs, and only a few, weak action sequences. Ok, ok, so there is a twist; by the time you reach it, though, you’ll find you never really cared. I’m really not sure the last time I’ve been so very bored by a movie. I really do think it had promise, but The Tourist somehow falls flat.

Despicable Me (2010)

Initially, I had very little interest in Despicable Me. Animated features aren’t really my bag, and neither is Steve Carell. However, word of mouth was really great, so it got an add to the Netflix queue. In contrast to The Tourist, this addition was not a mistake. Carell stars as Gru, an “aging” villain who is determined to bring off one last heist that will assure his place in history. When he adopts three adorable orphans, Margo, Edith, and Agnes, as part of a plan to steal a shrink ray from a rival villain, Vector (voiced by Jason Segel), he finds his priorities altered. This movie is laugh-out-loud funny. It does a great job of balancing simple humor with more sophisticated jokes for the parents, and doesn’t overdo its ultimately warm and fuzzy message. While it may suffer from comparisons to The Incredibles (Syndrome is a much better villain than Vector, for one thing), it is different enough to stand strong on its own. Naturally, we can expect a sequel sometime this year, so if you haven’t seen the original, I’d suggest doing that. Whether or not I will tune in for more of Gru, the girls, and their little yellow minions (alternately hilarious and annoying) remains to be seen, but that has more to do with my dislike of sequels than my enjoyment with this first installment.

Rex Harrison was an important actor for a long time, but today he’s probably best known for the classic musical, My Fair Lady. There’s tons of fun trivia about this movie: despite having performed the role of Eliza Doolittle on stage, Julie Andrews was passed over in favor of a better-known actress, Audrey Hepburn, who then had to have her singing numbers dubbed by Marni Nixon. Andrews would go on to beat Hepburn at the Oscars, winning Best Actress for Mary Poppins. Meanwhile, Harrison also won the Oscar, despite barely singing a note. The film won eight Oscars in all, including Best Picture and Best Director (George Cukor). I’ve always been a fan of My Fair Lady, and today we’ll celebrate the anniversary of Mr. Harrison’s birth with one of my favorite numbers.

The movie: My Fair Lady (1964)
The song: Just You Wait! (‘Enry ‘Iggins)