Opened July 16, 2010 | Runtime: 2 hr. 22 min.
PG-13 for sequences of violence and sequences of action

This is yet another movie where Leonardo DiCaprio runs around looking confused and constipated. Ok ok, I’m being a bit harsh here. But I have been referring to it as Shutter Island 2 with good reason. He’s essentially playing the same type of character in the same type of movie. The setting is different, and this time we’re dealing with dreams instead of psychosis. Though some would argue same difference. But there was definitely a sense of deja vu as a movie goer.

With that said, I thought Inception was GREAT! OMG – the twists and turns! Ok, so you can sort of see the ending coming. But man, the ride there is exciting! I had to remind myself to breathe a few times!

It is VERY confusing! I had a difficult time keeping up with the storyline. It moves at break-neck speed and switches gears constantly. Plus, you’re not always sure what’s “real” and what’s a dream. Which is, of course, part of the fun! I advised my parents not to see it because I knew they’d hate it! They’re always complaining that they have no idea what’s happening. And this one, forget it. They wouldn’t make it through the opening credits!

The special effects are excellent in a very Matrix-y sort of way, what with the whole defying gravity bits. Those Fx guys really know what they’re doing! The streets scenes where they get all bendy – you totally buy it! Freakin’ excellent!

And then there’s Leo in some desperate need of Metamucil… again (do you think he and Rob Pattinson have the same acting coach?) However, as with Shutter Island, it totally works. He IS supposed to be confused and freaking out and hiding. A lot. Which, I suppose, makes you look like you need an uptake in your daily fiber. He’s quite believable as a guy slowly unraveling.

Ellen Page is possibly my favorite. I’ve loved her in just about everything I’ve seen her in. She’s the newcomer. The one everything has to be explained to (so there’s a reasonable motivation to explain it all to us, the audience.) She’s how we found out how all this works and more importantly why. She’s just as awed and fascinated by it all as we are. Can I just say how much I appreciate that they gave this roll to a REAL actress and not just some hot-at-the-moment ditz like Megan Fox? I’m so tired of these bikini stuffers, who couldn’t act their way out of a paper bag, playing doctors and scientists! Give me a break already!

Sorry. Tirade over. Where was I? Oh yeah…

Joseph Gordon-Leavitt gives yet another understated yet crucial performance. I am really liking this guy. You may remember/recognize him as the youngest member of the 3rd Rock from the Sun cast. He has since cut his hair and really honed his acting chops (I think I mixed a metaphor there!) He’s been popping up in more and more movies lately. And with good reason. He gave one of the best performances in last year’s GI Joe and was heartbreakingly sweet in 500 Days of Summer (if you haven’t seen that one, go rent it! Great date night movie!!)

My overall review: This one lives up to the hype. If you love the movie theater experience, go see it now. And I definitely recommend renting it too. Just so that every time you think “Huh? What the heck just happened?” you can do your own instant replay! I’ve already got it in my Netflix queue!

Inception official movie website

You can read more about Tiffany at our Imperfect Women’s Contributors page.

Opened July 9, 2010 | Runtime: 1 hr. 35 min.
PG rude humor and mild action

When I saw the first trailer for this movie over a year ago, it was a scene with an insanely obnoxious (and all too typical) American tourist family in Egypt and a giant inflatable pyramid. And I remember thinking What.The.Heck?! It didn’t really make any sense. Then finally around January another trailer, this one with Gru (Steve Carell – the main “villain”) trying to invade another villain’s Fortress of Evil (that looked like it was Bill Gates’ summer home) and a shark. Which didn’t fit in at all with the previous trailer and left me wondering if the filmmakers had decided to scrap the first idea and go in a completely different direction. That would also explain why it was taking so darn long to finally be released!

Subsequent trailers improved (though that inflatable pyramid nor the obnoxious Americans never reappeared) and I began to think “hey, maybe this won’t suck after all.” With the heavy promotion of Steve Carell (and being a big “The Office” fan), I decided to gamble and take the kids to see it.

I’m so glad I did!!

Funny, smart, off-beat, dark and witty. All the things that made the first Shrek film so great (without as many pop-culture references, though there are some.) It’s a movie that’s not just for kids, but for the adults required to endure it with them.

Example: Gru needs a loan, so he goes to the bank. The Bank of Evil. And it has a little sign underneath that reads “formerly Lehman Brothers”.

I can’t tell you the laugh they got out of every adult in the audience (and there were lots of us, it was a packed house.)

Gru is endearing in his devotion to all things evil… and unexpectedly to the three little girls he adopts, for reasons I won’t get into here. No spoilers!!

But perhaps the best bits go to his minions, the tiny yellow pill shaped workers. They could have a movie all their own (and I wouldn’t be surprised if they rolled into one of those Saturday morning cartoons.) They are hysterical. And definitely add so much to this already very funny movie.

Plus, with the voices Steve Carell, Jason Segel, Russell Brand, Will Arnet and Julie Andrews, how can you lose?

Note: In most areas, it’s showing in both 2D and 3D. We opted for the 2D (well, my wallet did.) I don’t think we suffered in the least.

My overall review: while it’s no Toy Story 3 (and really, what could measure up to that?!) it’s totally worth an afternoon at the theater. If you miss it there, definitely put it at the top of your Netflix. Or better yet, add it to your at-home collection. Your kids won’t be the only ones wanting to watch it over and over (and over!) again!

Despicable Me movie website.

Opened November 13, 2009 | Runtime: 2 hr. 38 min.
PG-13: intense disaster sequences and some language

Well, I think we’ve watched enough disaster movies to have a pretty good idea of who survives. Though there are some surprises in that aspect too. But they have to be right. That’s part of the whole disaster end-of-world movie making formula. And yes, the writers/producers/directors followed that formula. The reason for that is quite simple: it works. Armeggedon, Deep Impact, The Day After Tomorrow – they all built on each other in magnitude and scope, but they all follow the same basic blueprint.

If you love big budget, special effects filled, action packed, edge of your seat, heart-pounding intense OMG DID YOU JUST SEE THAT! movies – than this, my friend, is the movie for you! This is a thrill ride of epic proportions! The disaster effects are spectacular. And they just keep coming.

We got a little extra chuckle here in Marin County. One of the first places to “go” is Point Reyes… which is just a couple of miles from the theater I was sitting in. Ah yes, it starts with California literally falling into the ocean. I’ve head about that since childhood. It’s still gorgeous here, I’ll take it over those frozen mid-western winters any day!

As for the actual script, it’s mediocre at best. I don’t do spoilers, so I can’t go in to too much detail about some of the problems I had with it, especially at the end. Cause it’s cliche, wraps things up a little tooooo neatly and well… yeah, I can’t say anymore. But we all know the script part is secondary in this kind of movie. It’s all about the special effects, baby!

There were a few casting surprises. Look for a nearly unrecognizable Woody Harrelson. He is GREAT (and I’m not a Woody fan by any means. But he is perfect in this role!) Danny Glover is our Commander in Chief and he has my vote. There’s a hilarious “news clip” of our Governator… only it’s not really Arnold. The actor’s accent is so bad I wonder if the movie producers did it on purpose. Amanda Peet does a good job of having really big, worried eyes through out the whole thing (I wish they’d give women a more active role in this, she’s almost just window dressing through the whole thing. Disappointing. Once again, men save the world… sort of…) So let’s touch on that for a minute.

I was impressed with the level of diversity FINALLY. Races were fairly well represented, it wasn’t American white man saves the planet this time around. It was definitely a good cultural mix with other nations (and not just nationalities) playing a big part. However, it was ALL MEN (with the exception of a couple of female heads of state, like Queen Elizabeth, a figurehead not a decision-maker.) All the scientists, etc… MEN. Ah, we’ve come so far and yet… the women still stand around, wringing their hands and waiting for the men to make decisions and take action. I may not have burned my bra (believe me, not an option – these babies need SUPPORT on a grand scale!) but I do believe that women are certainly capable of taking action in times of stress and disaster!

Well, this movie wasn’t meant to be a lesson on sexism and equality. Heck, it’s not even a lecture on Global Warming and taking better care of the environment (tsk tsk, if only everyone would just recycle!) This is predicted thousands of years in the future, unavoidable DISASTER on a planetary scale. It’s an epic, spectacular, in your face, blow ‘em up, action movie. And it does that very, very well!

My overall review: if you like action-adventure, end of the world, epic disaster movies (or John Cusack) then you’ll LOVE it!! My 13 year old thought it was AWESOME!

2012 Movie Website

Opened: October 23, 2009 | Runtime: 1 hr. 51 min.
PG: some sensuality, language, thematic elements and smoking.

The one thing I think everyone agrees on: Hilary Swank is a dead ringer for Amelia Earhart (no pun intended!) I mean, WOW! It’s almost eerie (and so appropriate for it’s pre-Halloween release!) I suppose she sounds just like her too, not that I am an expert on Amelia Earhart’s speech and dialect. But the cadence and lilt sounded “right”. Maybe it’s just from hearing her impersonated in so many movies over the years. Kind of how Elvis impersonators don’t really sound all that much like Elvis, but they do sound exactly like each other. My favorite, though, was Amy Adams as Amelia in Night in the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian! I kept wanting Hilary to say things were “jimmy-jacked” but she never did. Bit of a letdown, really. But I digress…

The aerial cinematography is breathtaking. If they were showing this in IMAX 3-D, this would have blown Soaring Over California right out of the water!! Spectacular! It will NOT look the same on your TV at home. Unless you’re like my friend who’s husband has installed a full size pull-down screen in their converted garage now actual “man cave”! Cause then, yeah, pretty much the same experience. But I’m guessing most normal people do not have access to this kind of near theater experience in their humble abodes and are like me, and watch it on their 13 inch in the bedroom with the door locked so the kids will give me like JUST 5 FREAKIN’ MINUTES OF PEACE ALREADY! GEEZ!!

Where was I? Ah, yes. Breathtaking. Spectacular. Cinematography credits may very well go to National Geographic or the Discovery Channel – they are THAT awesome! However…

That’s all the positive I have to say about the movie. The final sequence is exciting, but that’s it. I hate to say it, but the movie is fairly boring. It’s a historical drama, sanitized to be sure, though it doesn’t paint her in all rainbows and unicorns. But it’s close. It needed more grit and substance. I’ve seen more compelling documentaries on the History channel. It felt like the movie makers were relying too much on it’s stars to carry this one. Hilary Swank IS amazing. She’ll be an Oscar contender (again) for sure. But it also “felt” like an Oscar-vehicle for Swank, and I hate that. (Hello, Benjamin Button. Yes, I’m looking at you!)

I am going to go out on a limb here and assume that this next bit is NOT a spoiler. I don’t do spoilers, and I hate people who do. However, I’m assuming that everyone knows how this one ends. I brought my 8 year old son. He’s totally fascinated with airplanes and has been begging me to take him since he saw the first preview months ago. They read about Earhart in his class and he was completely familiar with the legend and legacy. In fact, about halfway through the movie, he asks if “this is where her plane disappears over the Atlantic?” (it’s the Pacific, but I didn’t bother to correct him as the answer was “no, not yet”.)

So, at the end of the movie (here’s the non-spoiler) when her plane is lost, my poor son just loses it. As Swank is doing this wonderful voice-over, they show the sky and for a minute it shows her plane (implying that she continues to soar, or her spirit will fly for ever, or some such “uplifting” type of thing) and then it fades again. Oh, when that plane showed again for a minute, my son actually said “LOOK MOM, SHE MADE IT!” And then when it faded, and he realized she really really didn’t, he put his face in my lap and LOST IT. Shuddering sobs. Oh, my poor baby. Even knowing the outcome, he really thought she was going to make it! That did settle one thing for me, there is no WAY he is watching Titanic!

My overall review: Looks great, but not enough substance. There’s nothing new here. Swank is fantastic, too bad they didn’t give her more to work with. Not a must-see.

Amelia movie website

Opened October 23, 2009 | Runtime:1 hr. 30 min.
PG-13: language, sexual references and a brief drug comment

Motherhood is a slice of life movie. It chronicles a day in the life of Eliza Welch (played by Uma Thurman), a stay-at-home mother of two and writer of the mommy-blog “The Bjorn Identity” (why didn’t I think of that?!) It starts with Eliza waking in the still dark morning, shuffling out of bed, checking on her still sleeping children, snapping a picture of her daughter, making a cup of coffee, and sitting down in her office to write her blog. Hmm… I don’t know about you, but switch out the coffee for tea (and “office” for my bed) and that describes my morning to a T.

In fact, I did identify with a lot of Eliza’s day. The crazy, hectic mornings, annoying people in line at the store and trying to find two minutes to string together a complex sentence. The feelings of having lost your “real” identity to that of wife and mother, and wondering if you’ll ever again find that woman you once were. Since I am currently in the middle of literally that exact same struggle, this movie hit closer to home for me than I was expecting.

What I didn’t identify with is that Uma Thurman on her worst day is looking 10 times better than me on my best. I know they tried really hard to “ugly” her up, but underneath the hair and glasses, she’s still Uma. And on the close-ups, it REALLY bugged me to see this perfect makeup job. I’m sorry, but harried mom who doesn’t even have time to run a brush through her hair does NOT have perfect makeup. Take note, movie makers!! I’m lucky to get some concealer and mascara applied! In fact, a great scenario would have been to have Uma interrupted and end up going through her day with mascara on only one eye. Not that that’s ever happened to me!

But aside from Uma’s great beauty (and my own insecurities) I found this movie wonderfully validating. Rare is the movie that comes from the mom’s point of view. Usually, she’s the supporting character in someone else’s life. And don’t we all feel like that, at least on occasion? It’s listed as a comedy, though I think it’s more accurately described as REALITY. My reality, when I look at it from the outside, is pretty comical. Which is what I try to capture in my own mommy blog.

I’m going to take a moment and address the issue of kids’ names, because several scenes make mention of it. There’s a scene where Eliza is accused of giving her daughter, Clara, an Edna-name “you named her after your favorite grandmother, didn’t you?” If I remember correctly, her response is “shut up!” There’s another scene where a mom is on the phone with her daycare, telling them she’s going to be late picking up her twins “Skye and Banjo” – and of course, the audience broke out laughing here. Because that’s ridiculous, right, who names their son Banjo?! But is Skye really in the same realm as Banjo? I’ve heard it referred to as one of those “hippie” names like Rain and River, but I never thought of it as such? So, what’s the consensus? Is Skye one of those weird, out there names like Rumor and Apple? Or is it just unusual and uncommon? Like, say Tad.

My overall review: I really liked it. Maybe it was just seeing myself on screen (a taller, thinner version of me) but I enjoyed seeing a mom who was a person and not just a supporting caricature in someone else’s more interesting (read: important) life.

Motherhood movie website

Opened October 16, 2009 | Runtime:1 hr. 34 min.
PG: mild thematic elements, some adventure action and brief language

From the moment the opening credits roll, you know this is Max’s movie. His perspective and his story to tell. Just like the book, this isn’t a happy go lucky fairy-tale of childhood innocence and wonderment. Max’s world isn’t all sunshine and rainbows. He is sad, lonely, confused and yes, angry. This isn’t just shown in his out of control behavior and soulful eyes; but also in the bleak greyness throughout the movie. There are no bright colors here. No cat in a red-striped hat. They got the spirit and tone of the book spot on!

I took three of my kids: 5 & 18 year old daughters and 13 year old son. The 5 year old seemed to get a little bored, she was more fidgety than usual and wanted to leave the second it was over. In the car she proclaimed it her favoritest movie ever, but she proclaims that about most movies she sees. She’s not really the most reliable or discerning movie critic. My 18 year old loved it and she is pretty particular about her movies. My son said it was OK. He couldn’t really name anything he loved about it. And when I asked him what he didn’t like it, he said the Wild Things noses running all the time was kinda gross. So there’s that. We talked about what the monsters each symbolize and why would the movie makers deliberately give the monsters runny noses (to emphasize their childness, don’t little kids usually have runny noses?) He seemed to like it more, the more we talked about it.

And that, I think, is the key to this movie. While it’s based on a well known and loved children’s book, I think it’s more appreciated by the adults who loved it as kids. And it seems to be written for them. A movie intended for the child inside those adults, and for them to share with their children. I definitely fall into this group. I couldn’t wait for this movie to come out, and to see it with my kids.

There were a couple of scenes where my 5 year old got a little scared, but only for a moment or two. And there were a few places where it seemed to get a little long. I can definitely see small children being bored, it’s not fast-paced or action-packed. No flashy CGI or 3D special effects to be found here. I didn’t bring my 8 year old. He would have been bored out of his skull, made at least three bathroom trips and announced that he wanted to leave by the half-way point.

Did I love this movie? Not as much as I really WANTED to love this movie. I wanted to adore it and rave about it and tell everyone that this is the most wonderful movie ever made. But truth be told, I didn’t. Don’t get me wrong, this is a beautiful movie. One we’ll buy the minute it comes out on DVD and my kids will watch over and over again. It tells it’s story well, stays true to the book, and was made with Maurice Sendak’s blessing. You can’t ask for better than that. But I think my hopes and expectations were just too high. Impossible to live up to and destined to disappoint. I left the theater with less of a bounce in my step than I’d entered it. I had wanted just a little bit more.

My overall review: while true to the book, it doesn’t transcend it. Younger children may have a harder time staying interested, well-timed snacks are key!

Where The Wild Thing Are

To call (500) Days of Summer a romantic comedy may be slightly misleading; after all, very early in the film, the narrator warns the viewer: “This is not a love story.” Though that in itself is not exactly true; it is the story of how Tom falls in love with Summer, but Summer doesn’t love him back, at least not enough, and breaks up with him, breaking his heart.

(500) Days of Summer could perhaps better be termed a coming-of-age tale. Tom Hansen is young(ish), good-looking and funny, but some unspecified lack of confidence finds him floating a bit, not using his degree in architecture but instead working for a greeting card company. There he meets Summer Finn, and instantly falls hard. Tom is one of those old-fashioned souls who believes in True Love and soulmates. It’s unfortunate then, that in this respect, Tom and Summer are not well matched: Summer does not believe in love, commitment or permanency. Nevertheless, Tom and Summer do get together, and find themselves well-suited in a lot of other ways. At first it’s all bliss and joy and acting silly in Ikea, but then, as with many an impermanent love story, things start to go south. Tom, fervently believing that Summer is The One, does not even consider giving up, but Summer, who likens their relationship to that of Sid Vicious and his girlfriend Nancy (but has to clarify for him that she is Sid in this scenario), sees no reason to hold onto a relationship that is not making either of them happy.

This was a pretty interesting film; it could be seen as a cynical take on the typical rom-com, where love conquers all, but I prefer to think of it as a more realistic version. Tom is hurt and heartbroken and angry after being dumped, but as a blind date points out to him, Summer never lied to him. Sure, she’s screwed up (by her parents’ divorce, apparently), but Tom is too – he falls in “love” with Summer without even knowing her. Though the story is told from Tom’s point of view, and thus at times Summer does seem callous, by the end it’s clear that there are no heroes or villains – just ordinary people struggling to reconcile reality with their expectations (this in fact is cleverly illustrated by a split-screen scene of Tom’s imaginary take on his joyous reunion with Summer when she impulsively invites him to a party she’s throwing, and the way the party actually goes).

What I liked best about (500) Days of Summer, besides the excellent performances by the leads, Joseph Gordon-Leavitt and Zooey Deschanel, was its unusual structure and a few quirky storytelling flourishes (such as the above-mentioned scene). The story is more or less linear, but sometimes does jump backward or forward, preceded by a title card indicating that it’s, say, “Day 351″.

The film ends on a hopeful note, though in retrospect, it occurred to me that it could be interpreted more than one way – on the one hand, Tom does seem to grow a bit and makes some choices to move forward in his life. On the other hand, there’s the suggestion that he may not have learned his lesson when it comes to love. I guess your take on the movie will depend on whether you’re more of a Tom or a Summer in your outlook on true and lasting love. Either way, I do recommend (500) Days of Summer.