It was cute, but only cute as the thing that made the feature length D.E.B.s possible. What the director intends to play at is Romeo and Juliet with lesbians in a 'Charlie's Angels' style spoof setting, cool. I thought the feature length version of this did that swimmingly and thank goodness this sparked that little jewel of a camp film, because this short sort of lacked that real forbidden love energy. I know, the whole thing is built around a 'joke' (saving the captive who isn't, misinterpreting sex sounds for sounds of torture), but even the 'I love you' felt manipulative so Amy could get off and not a 'real' moment of connection. Silly as the D.E.B.s feature was, it was at least more than a lesbian sex joke. Glad I saw it first.
Reviews
14 Reviews
Kiss Me
(2011)
Okay love story, it's been done better (some spoilers)
12 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
There were a couple things I like about this movie. One, that the lesbian character is in a relationship. Way too many of these straight-woman-in-a-relationship stories have the lesbian hanging out in an isolated world where, of course, she MUST convert a straight woman to her ways in order to have a lover. By taking that factor out, we can more easily believe Frida and Mia like each other, because they like each other. My second winning thing about the movie, Mia's bisexuality as a factor. Once that "comes out", it adds a layer to things that again helps makes this less about 'the only two that could must be' .
Only this comes out WAY too late in the film. Life is complicated, but film's should unfold in a linear fashion where the viewer can justify character's actions along the way and if you show me a woman having sex (and seeming to enjoy it) with her man and then half way through the film have herself throw herself at a woman - then damn near run away from it. I'm still thinking she's a woman who's thought herself straight up to now and this 'new' emotion is causing conflict, fine, I'm on that journey with the character. Then to say 'hey, I've actually known I might be bisexual for awhile' feels like a cheat. I shouldn't have to re-watch the movie with the intent of redefining that character journey. There are twist and there are cheats, this just felt like a cheat. A lesbian movies that pulled off the questioning female with a past relationship well was 'Loving Annabelle' - as much as that was about the build to a love scene it at least was a logical build to a a love scene. It set up a character reluctant to deal with conflicts in her perception of her own sexuality really early in the film with simple visual clues to a pre-existing relationship.
The thing that really turned me off about this film was the lack of respect for existing relationships. To have the feelings and walk the fine line of what to do with them is one thing - and great dramatic tension. Throwing people under the bus because there's a jones in your crotch is another. I think 'Imagine, Me, & You' did this particular bit about a thousand times better as did 'When Night is Falling'. In 'Imagine', in addition to developing a relationship between the characters for me to root for, I freakin' loved Heck. I didn't want him hurt and I respected Luce, because she didn't want to hurt him either. In 'When Night is Falling' Petra is aggressive in putting her interest for the other woman out there, but respects whatever line she draws in the sand - she also has NO relationship with the character's boyfriend. So while there is an affair present there, as in this film. Her mother isn't marrying the other character's father (as in Kyss Mig) or they haven't hung out and had dinner together (as in Imagine Me & You). Frida just doesn't seem to care how this affects other people.
Frida not only had no issue with seducing her future Step-Father's daughter, she threw her girlfriend under the bus. And she'd had a longer relationship with the father than she had with Mia. Yet, she aggressively pursues Mia despite the stress it might put on her mother's relationship with Mia's father, who she allegedly likes. I never got over thinking Frida was a jerk for the way she treated those characters. And poor Tim. So he was picky about where they lived and had some grand opinions on there wedding. The dude wasn't a bad guy and it seemed like the movie wanted me to believe he was. Yeah, he gets aggressive once in bed, but he backs off when he realizes she's not into it.
Also, if Frida and mom and new step-dad were all thrilled to have Tim around, why wasn't Elin hanging out with the fam? He obviously doesn't mind that Frida is gay as she isn't his daughter. They blatantly say this in the film. So if lovers are being invited to the table and Frida and step-dad get along so well, Elin's absence seems quite odd. Another slap in the face viewer 'cheat' early in the film is not revealing the lover exist earlier in the film. And what was the point of not even speaking Elin's name? Hiding Frida's sexuality until later in the film? She's practically undressing Mia with her eyes in the first two seconds, attraction, I get it. She likes girls. There's no value in hiding the girlfriend from the viewer, even if you hide it from Mia so she can have her 'so you like girls moment'. Also once you find out Mia is aware of her own bisexuality, all these moments feel a little like lies to the viewer. I bought sexual confusion in 'Loving Annabelle' (thin as plot was there) way more than I bought it here.
The two women the film wanted me to root for were such horrible unfeeling people to their lovers in this film, the people and relationship I rooted for was the one between the parents. That stood the greatest test and showed far more character.
Only this comes out WAY too late in the film. Life is complicated, but film's should unfold in a linear fashion where the viewer can justify character's actions along the way and if you show me a woman having sex (and seeming to enjoy it) with her man and then half way through the film have herself throw herself at a woman - then damn near run away from it. I'm still thinking she's a woman who's thought herself straight up to now and this 'new' emotion is causing conflict, fine, I'm on that journey with the character. Then to say 'hey, I've actually known I might be bisexual for awhile' feels like a cheat. I shouldn't have to re-watch the movie with the intent of redefining that character journey. There are twist and there are cheats, this just felt like a cheat. A lesbian movies that pulled off the questioning female with a past relationship well was 'Loving Annabelle' - as much as that was about the build to a love scene it at least was a logical build to a a love scene. It set up a character reluctant to deal with conflicts in her perception of her own sexuality really early in the film with simple visual clues to a pre-existing relationship.
The thing that really turned me off about this film was the lack of respect for existing relationships. To have the feelings and walk the fine line of what to do with them is one thing - and great dramatic tension. Throwing people under the bus because there's a jones in your crotch is another. I think 'Imagine, Me, & You' did this particular bit about a thousand times better as did 'When Night is Falling'. In 'Imagine', in addition to developing a relationship between the characters for me to root for, I freakin' loved Heck. I didn't want him hurt and I respected Luce, because she didn't want to hurt him either. In 'When Night is Falling' Petra is aggressive in putting her interest for the other woman out there, but respects whatever line she draws in the sand - she also has NO relationship with the character's boyfriend. So while there is an affair present there, as in this film. Her mother isn't marrying the other character's father (as in Kyss Mig) or they haven't hung out and had dinner together (as in Imagine Me & You). Frida just doesn't seem to care how this affects other people.
Frida not only had no issue with seducing her future Step-Father's daughter, she threw her girlfriend under the bus. And she'd had a longer relationship with the father than she had with Mia. Yet, she aggressively pursues Mia despite the stress it might put on her mother's relationship with Mia's father, who she allegedly likes. I never got over thinking Frida was a jerk for the way she treated those characters. And poor Tim. So he was picky about where they lived and had some grand opinions on there wedding. The dude wasn't a bad guy and it seemed like the movie wanted me to believe he was. Yeah, he gets aggressive once in bed, but he backs off when he realizes she's not into it.
Also, if Frida and mom and new step-dad were all thrilled to have Tim around, why wasn't Elin hanging out with the fam? He obviously doesn't mind that Frida is gay as she isn't his daughter. They blatantly say this in the film. So if lovers are being invited to the table and Frida and step-dad get along so well, Elin's absence seems quite odd. Another slap in the face viewer 'cheat' early in the film is not revealing the lover exist earlier in the film. And what was the point of not even speaking Elin's name? Hiding Frida's sexuality until later in the film? She's practically undressing Mia with her eyes in the first two seconds, attraction, I get it. She likes girls. There's no value in hiding the girlfriend from the viewer, even if you hide it from Mia so she can have her 'so you like girls moment'. Also once you find out Mia is aware of her own bisexuality, all these moments feel a little like lies to the viewer. I bought sexual confusion in 'Loving Annabelle' (thin as plot was there) way more than I bought it here.
The two women the film wanted me to root for were such horrible unfeeling people to their lovers in this film, the people and relationship I rooted for was the one between the parents. That stood the greatest test and showed far more character.
Don't look here for the book you loved, just curl up in a corner happy you have the books to read
20 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad, mostly because they dare CLAIM it's at all related to the book of the same name. Maybe if I didn't know the books, I would have appreciated it more, but they didn't even TRY to stay honest to character. Annabeth was the character I found most offensively re-written. I mean they retained NOTHING from the books, no connection to Luke, no diversion into Architectural appreciation, NOTHING that even faintly reminded me of the cute little girl in the books. The second most offensive thing, HADES - if you read the books you should understand why his interest in taking over Olympus was just wrong.
The good thing about the first Harry Potter and why I STILL like it, is he was allowed to be the sweet innocent 11 year old in the first movie. Yes, the actors were still learning how to act, but it was allowed to be a movie staring a kid that kids could enjoy. What they didn't allow in this movie was a chance for Percy to be the innocent 12 year old he was in the books, so they grew the character up to make him a teenage hottie faster (as well as his parade of friends). People loved the Potter characters through all the movies because we got attached to them as kids and watch them mature (both as characters and as actors). Making Percy more than 3/4 of the way into manhood instead of a foot out of the door of boyhood ruined the innocence and sweetness of the books (a sweetness that existed despite Gods, Monsters, and Puberty).
Bad Bad Bad, if you loved the books at all and anything about the characters in them, don't look here for a realization of that. I mean, even 'A Series of Unfortunate Events' did a better job squishing about 3 books into one movie!
The good thing about the first Harry Potter and why I STILL like it, is he was allowed to be the sweet innocent 11 year old in the first movie. Yes, the actors were still learning how to act, but it was allowed to be a movie staring a kid that kids could enjoy. What they didn't allow in this movie was a chance for Percy to be the innocent 12 year old he was in the books, so they grew the character up to make him a teenage hottie faster (as well as his parade of friends). People loved the Potter characters through all the movies because we got attached to them as kids and watch them mature (both as characters and as actors). Making Percy more than 3/4 of the way into manhood instead of a foot out of the door of boyhood ruined the innocence and sweetness of the books (a sweetness that existed despite Gods, Monsters, and Puberty).
Bad Bad Bad, if you loved the books at all and anything about the characters in them, don't look here for a realization of that. I mean, even 'A Series of Unfortunate Events' did a better job squishing about 3 books into one movie!
Sonja
(2006)
Flawed telling, but beautiful story
4 October 2008
Even though this film is lacking something in the end, some additional scene. Maybe with the mom I think, I still love it. After watching this film, go back, watch the beginning and listen to Sonja's poem. The poem is about loneliness, it sets the tone and speaks on the whole movie. While I understand the intent (it's almost a teaser to the peace), I think the poem would have been better at the end while Sonja was walking away as it says what needs to be said about the story as gives it a sort of peace and understanding and even beauty that the existing ending doesn't.
While this movie is about self-discovery, it is also about the loneliness of such a journey. And it is lonely and frustrating to feel a million things that can't be spoken. To have your mother misunderstand you, to not feel the way you're suppose to feel about boys -- the way all the other girls are feeling about boys, and to have this friend... this friend who touches you on so many unique ways down inside your soul, but who doesn't understand the depth of it. And on the one hand you want them to know and understand, but on the other hand you question... if they did, would I still have them? And it can tear you apart to hold this question inside you.
While there are flaws in the piece (the ending, the pacing, disjointed transitions), there's also a lot of heart in it. In the final scene between Sonja and Julia in the film I could feel Sonja's heart falling into her hands as she finally opened up to Julia. In fact, all through the movie I felt Sonja. The actress that played her was incredible and the story's core is beautiful. Like I said, you'll feel cheated by the ending at first. But then go back to the beginning and listen again to Sonja's poem for Julia and you understand the story so much better.
While this movie is about self-discovery, it is also about the loneliness of such a journey. And it is lonely and frustrating to feel a million things that can't be spoken. To have your mother misunderstand you, to not feel the way you're suppose to feel about boys -- the way all the other girls are feeling about boys, and to have this friend... this friend who touches you on so many unique ways down inside your soul, but who doesn't understand the depth of it. And on the one hand you want them to know and understand, but on the other hand you question... if they did, would I still have them? And it can tear you apart to hold this question inside you.
While there are flaws in the piece (the ending, the pacing, disjointed transitions), there's also a lot of heart in it. In the final scene between Sonja and Julia in the film I could feel Sonja's heart falling into her hands as she finally opened up to Julia. In fact, all through the movie I felt Sonja. The actress that played her was incredible and the story's core is beautiful. Like I said, you'll feel cheated by the ending at first. But then go back to the beginning and listen again to Sonja's poem for Julia and you understand the story so much better.
Imagine Me & You
(2005)
Absolutely Adorable Love Story
24 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This is, absolutely, the perfect lesbian date movie. I've seen a lot of Lesbian cinema. As a same-sex loving person you tend to seek out those movies that reflect you, nothing unusual. But even the simplest of the Lesbian films - even those on the light side - tend to reflect some formulaic approaches. Like the husband is a jerk or dead weight. To the contrary... in imagine, me & You ...you LOVE Heck to death and can imagine why his wife has such a hard time following her heart. The most shocking part of the whole film is that you as an audience not only feel sorry for Heck ending up getting the short end of the stick, you indeed fall in love with him yourself. Not only that, I think the reactions to the fact Luce is a lesbian are refreshingly neutral. Treated more as a fact of her life than some disease. In fact, Beyond Rach's Mum reaction to it, there's no big "family" backlash purely on the idea of Luce (and possibly Rach) being a lesbian. I absolutely adored the fact that 85% of the movie is just about "What if on the day you were to marry your best friend, you met someone who stole your heart without even trying?" Only about 15% of the movie deals with the shock of that being someone of the same gender. And did I mention you freakin' love almost EVERY character in this movie. How many movies can sell you on damn near everyone... especially the enchanting little girl that plays "H" (Rach's younger sister). And Giles, GILES from Buffy the Vampire Slayer playing her dad just gave me all kinds of fan-girl joy.
After seeing Piper Parabo as the tragic young lover who loses the girl in "Lost & Delirious" it was nice to see her get her woman in this film, but it's hard to even connect this sweet English girl (Rachel) to the hardened and very lost Paulie in "Lost and Delirious" which REALLY makes me respect her as an actress. And yes, I TOTTALLY bought her British accent.... I don't know why people thought it sounded fake.
Imagine Me & You is perhaps the first Lesbian Romantic comedy I've seen that equals up to some of the best of the same in the Heterosexual arena. Definitely the best "feel good" Lesbian movie I've ever seen. It didn't even need a sex scene to sell itself to the audience as a story of genuine love. And in this sex-charged (sex=love, except it doesn't) world it's nice to see a story rise above the need to sell the story based on erotic moments, minus a really funny trip to the Video store - one of the best scenes in the film in my opinion.
After seeing Piper Parabo as the tragic young lover who loses the girl in "Lost & Delirious" it was nice to see her get her woman in this film, but it's hard to even connect this sweet English girl (Rachel) to the hardened and very lost Paulie in "Lost and Delirious" which REALLY makes me respect her as an actress. And yes, I TOTTALLY bought her British accent.... I don't know why people thought it sounded fake.
Imagine Me & You is perhaps the first Lesbian Romantic comedy I've seen that equals up to some of the best of the same in the Heterosexual arena. Definitely the best "feel good" Lesbian movie I've ever seen. It didn't even need a sex scene to sell itself to the audience as a story of genuine love. And in this sex-charged (sex=love, except it doesn't) world it's nice to see a story rise above the need to sell the story based on erotic moments, minus a really funny trip to the Video store - one of the best scenes in the film in my opinion.
Fire
(1996)
Seeing things simply....
28 April 2004
First of all, I love this movie. Mostly because I think sexuality is vague issue here, it's instead the idea of loyalty vs. personal fulfillment being explored. Yeah, I think the idea that a 'bad' husband drives a woman to another woman is a lie, but it did not hinder my enjoyment of this film simply because it's deeper than that. I saw sexuality being precisely hetro or homosexual challenged here. The friendship could have stayed an emotionally fulfilling friendship, but it doesn't. It matures into sexual attraction and a physical relation ship. Why? I do believe, with Sita at least, she never seemed satisfied with her husband. And only wanted to make the best of it because she seemed to just be trying to fulfill some idea in her head about how marriage should be (as she was raised to believe it should be at least). It doesn't help that her husband's true love (or is it true lust?) remains in his life, but I still never felt like there was ever any real love or attraction between them, unlike Sita's relationship with Radha. Yes, Sita was a lesbian from the beginning and at the beginnings of a sexual awakening. In her rigged upbringing she was able to repress those feelings, but the closer she gets to Radha - the harder it becomes. She wants that genuine connection to become more because it's a real genuine emotional and physical attraction. Radha on the other hand is a more complex character to figure out sexually, she loves her husband (it seems), but suffers from neglect because of a vow her husband took once it was clear children would not result from a continued physical relationship between them. But he seems to have taken this role to the next level, cutting off the emotional relationship along with the physical one. She remains loyal, as she feels she should, until Sita takes their friendship to the next level. As there are bisexual people who can fall in love with one person at a time, and that person can be either male or female So why can't Radha be bisexual? And that's what I find interesting about Radha, she fell in love with someone else and it was that simple. I found Radha, in particular, touched me as a character. Especially her confrontation with her husband before she can make the choice she makes in the end. So I think all in all, it's a beautiful love story. But maybe I suffer from seeing things simply.
I also found the characters believably flawed. Everyone made mistakes in their relationships here, including the women. This is a story about two women who married into bad situations. That doesn't mean I believe their are no healthy family situations in India.
I also found the characters believably flawed. Everyone made mistakes in their relationships here, including the women. This is a story about two women who married into bad situations. That doesn't mean I believe their are no healthy family situations in India.
Not the worst sequel ever....
24 April 2004
It's not the worst sequel ever, I mean have you seen the crap that is NES Film III. NES II was at least an attempt to tell the second half of the book where as that evil thing called NES III was just an attempt to further milk the success of the previous film. What's sadder in the case of all three films is they waited so many years inbetween films that they couldn't even use the same actors. The same bastian/atreyu/child-like empress in a two part film would have made far more sense then the huge gap between I and II that made the actors too old too come back. But even with that, they age Bastian up, aged his father down, and, I believe, age the child-like Empress who shouldn't have aged at all.
The best thing that can be said about NeS II is it was loads better than NeS III, though forced to re-cast it still tried to hold onto the spirit of the original characters. The problem was NeS I & II should have been a two part film made with the same actors. Because for the second half of the book he didn't come 'home', he went right into the 'Fantasia' portion of the story. The time gap between films I & II forces them to hit the re-set button with Bastian and almost re-play issues conqured in the first one. As a fantasy film and sequel to the former film, it's simple okay, not too bad, and somewhat fun, but it doesn't hit the emotional mark the first film did. It also doesn't as loyaly capture the spirit of the second half of the book the way NeS I captured the first half. I wish the makers of the first film had thought ahead and invisioned a two part work the way the makers of LotR envisioned thier trilogy.
The good things about NeS II: It was actually somewhat derived from the second half of the book. It was better than the crap that was NeS III.
The Bad thing: The time gap with NeS I made some parts of Bastian's character development repetative and parts of the 'new versions' of the old characters story conflicted with the previous film. It had to stray to far from the book, unlike the first film.
Okay sequel watch it if you liked the first and are curious (and maybe haven't read the book or aren't a stickler for canon), stay as far away from the third sequel as you can rather you're a fan of the book or one of the films.
The best thing that can be said about NeS II is it was loads better than NeS III, though forced to re-cast it still tried to hold onto the spirit of the original characters. The problem was NeS I & II should have been a two part film made with the same actors. Because for the second half of the book he didn't come 'home', he went right into the 'Fantasia' portion of the story. The time gap between films I & II forces them to hit the re-set button with Bastian and almost re-play issues conqured in the first one. As a fantasy film and sequel to the former film, it's simple okay, not too bad, and somewhat fun, but it doesn't hit the emotional mark the first film did. It also doesn't as loyaly capture the spirit of the second half of the book the way NeS I captured the first half. I wish the makers of the first film had thought ahead and invisioned a two part work the way the makers of LotR envisioned thier trilogy.
The good things about NeS II: It was actually somewhat derived from the second half of the book. It was better than the crap that was NeS III.
The Bad thing: The time gap with NeS I made some parts of Bastian's character development repetative and parts of the 'new versions' of the old characters story conflicted with the previous film. It had to stray to far from the book, unlike the first film.
Okay sequel watch it if you liked the first and are curious (and maybe haven't read the book or aren't a stickler for canon), stay as far away from the third sequel as you can rather you're a fan of the book or one of the films.
George of the Jungle 2
(2003 Video)
Disappointing sequel
22 November 2003
I'm not one to go into a movie that's meant to be silly, expecting shakespere. But like a lot of comedy sequels, the jokes were too set up and too planned instead of coming from the situatution. Angus T. Jones was sweet as Junior and didn't get enough screentime, Julie Benz is a wonderful actress but suffers in this role, Chris Showerman would have made a fine 'new' George with a better script, as would Thomas Haden Church returning as Lyle. But everyone suffers do to a bad and very unfunny story that attempts to manipulate you into laughing. But beyond the line about the reason for a new 'George', I barely laughed at all. And I certainly didn't believe in George and Ursula's love despite the extremely idiot situations (though I did in the first film). There's silly so funny you watch it over and over again (first George of the Jungle film) and silly so stupid you never want to see it again (the sequel). Even the kids, who loved the first film, didn't laugh much watching this one. And they kept wondering why the all important Junior was conviently dropped from the middle of the story only to magically jump in again at the end. This movie was one of the worse Disney sequels ever made.
Glitter
(2001)
BORING
29 July 2003
I left this movie thinking one thing, why should I care? The main character was boring, the best friends were underused, the mother-father plotline (which could have been exploited for much more emotional termoil) wasn't explored, the boyfriend had no chemistry with the girlfriend. The Dialogue was bad. The script was bad and what's sad is the actually had elements that could have been good. But as it stands, I didn't care about the characters, the story was choppy, and it wasn't even fun to make fun of.
Bad idea Mariah, keep singing. Stay away from acting. I'd rather, gasp, watch Mandy Moore. And she's a bubble-gum pop star I only gave the time of day as an actress by accident. She was both laughable as the ditsy blond teenager in 'The Princess Diaries' and tugged at my heart strings as the terminally ill character in 'A walk to Remember'. I'm still as shocked about how watchable she was as I am shocked anyone liked 'Glitter'.
Glitter's not even bad in a funny way, it's boring, boring, boring.
Bad idea Mariah, keep singing. Stay away from acting. I'd rather, gasp, watch Mandy Moore. And she's a bubble-gum pop star I only gave the time of day as an actress by accident. She was both laughable as the ditsy blond teenager in 'The Princess Diaries' and tugged at my heart strings as the terminally ill character in 'A walk to Remember'. I'm still as shocked about how watchable she was as I am shocked anyone liked 'Glitter'.
Glitter's not even bad in a funny way, it's boring, boring, boring.
Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves!
(1997 TV Movie)
Not the worse sequel I've ever seen
25 July 2002
I bought this film because a) Allison Mack is in it and b) I own the other two "Honey" films, so I decided to complete the collection.
This movie is a pretty good family film that actually does logically take off from the series. We saw Amy leave in the second film, in this, the third film, we just assume Nick is gone. He was already a teenager when Adam was 2 (in the second film) and Young Adam (played by Bug Hall in this film) is at least seven or eight years older than he was back then which makes both Nick and Amy old enough to have moved out. If the film had taken place in the space of months or years instead of a few days, I might have expected more Nick and/or Amy ref. , but as the film stood it wasn't neccessary to do more than acknowledge they exsist (which they did). As for the new family, again because of the time-frame of these films, it's easy to assume we just never met these people before. Cousin Jenny (Allison Mack)is annoying at points, but that a fault of her characters age group. She's filling the role of teenage girl in the film, a role first fullfilled by Amy in "honey I shrunk the kids" and filled by Nick's love intrest Mandy (Keri Russell) in "Honey I blew up the kid". There is a problem with "Honey we shrunk ourselves" recycling plots from the previous films (riding in toy cars, taming large bugs) and they also pulled the overused "teen invites a few friends over and it turns into an out of control party" trick, but overall it's fun to watch. Instead of the parents panicking because something has happened to the kids, the kids rejoice in having the house to themselves not knowing there parents have been watching the whole time. And while the parents don't hessitate to want there kids "back to normal" that isn't as true when the situation is reversed. It's not a Great film, but as far as sequels go, this pretty much remains believable and loyal to the previous story (unlike movies like 'The Lion King II' and 'the Neverending Story III') and it is still as fun to watch as the other two films. I have two types of 'family' movies in the house, the ones I have to put in and I leave the kids alone to watch (because they are annoying) and the ones I can watch with them. This one I can easily sit and enjoy with them.
This movie is a pretty good family film that actually does logically take off from the series. We saw Amy leave in the second film, in this, the third film, we just assume Nick is gone. He was already a teenager when Adam was 2 (in the second film) and Young Adam (played by Bug Hall in this film) is at least seven or eight years older than he was back then which makes both Nick and Amy old enough to have moved out. If the film had taken place in the space of months or years instead of a few days, I might have expected more Nick and/or Amy ref. , but as the film stood it wasn't neccessary to do more than acknowledge they exsist (which they did). As for the new family, again because of the time-frame of these films, it's easy to assume we just never met these people before. Cousin Jenny (Allison Mack)is annoying at points, but that a fault of her characters age group. She's filling the role of teenage girl in the film, a role first fullfilled by Amy in "honey I shrunk the kids" and filled by Nick's love intrest Mandy (Keri Russell) in "Honey I blew up the kid". There is a problem with "Honey we shrunk ourselves" recycling plots from the previous films (riding in toy cars, taming large bugs) and they also pulled the overused "teen invites a few friends over and it turns into an out of control party" trick, but overall it's fun to watch. Instead of the parents panicking because something has happened to the kids, the kids rejoice in having the house to themselves not knowing there parents have been watching the whole time. And while the parents don't hessitate to want there kids "back to normal" that isn't as true when the situation is reversed. It's not a Great film, but as far as sequels go, this pretty much remains believable and loyal to the previous story (unlike movies like 'The Lion King II' and 'the Neverending Story III') and it is still as fun to watch as the other two films. I have two types of 'family' movies in the house, the ones I have to put in and I leave the kids alone to watch (because they are annoying) and the ones I can watch with them. This one I can easily sit and enjoy with them.
The Dark Crystal
(1982)
Excellent
23 July 2002
This movie is utterly amazing. This is what you call an ORIGINAL fantasy film. In the world of rubbery looking CGI, it's intresting to see how much better a live action fantasy world can be created with Puppets. Both myself and the kids can sit down and enjoy this master piece together.
Birds of Prey
(2002–2003)
Do I have to wait till fall for the second episode?
19 July 2002
The only thing BAD about the Birds of Prey pilot episode is that it ends. After watching it with some doubt of enjoyment, I was left wanting more in the end. Does that mean the acting is perfection? That the show is perfect, flawless, wouldn't change a thing? NO, that's not what it means. However, you can tell there was a lot of love (or money at least) put into this Pilot. The city looks beautiful. Gotham City was a good computer-generated investment. I also recognize what a Pilot is, it's a beginning. Despite being the baby of the team, the "reformed version" of Dinah is anything but a helpless kid. I sort of accept that there's going to be something childlike about her, but it's clear she has the potential and dedication to be a good future crime fighter. Dina Meyer is Barbara Gordon, there's little doubt about that. A lot of people will be watching just for her. Huntress, well I'm giving Ashley a break. She is still learning how to change modes from sarcastic smart-mouth to a softer side of her character. Still she's fun to watch when she's being sarcastic and has amazing cat-like movement. Her fight scenes are great to watch. What will make or break this series, and I think it already the best part, is the Huntress / Oracle chemistry? The best thing about this series is Ashley Scott playing mostly opposite Dina Meyer? They reflect off each other well. The series most important relationship will be this friendship, not the Huntress/Resse relationship (that will they/won't they thing they're trying to build). "Birds of Prey" has the potential to be a good "Gotham" based series on the WB. This is the type of series you either love at first viewing or hate. You either accept the changes or don't. I really don't know if this will soar on the WB or fall flat, but I do know a) even good shows get canceled and b) this has the potential to be great. So I'm hoping for the best.
Glitter
(2001)
All that Glitters is not Gold. . .
21 September 2001
Mariah hitting the high notes in "Hero" still makes me melt and "dreamlover" despite being a "pop" song in all it's glory, still makes me smile and dance.
But Glitter left me wanting a refund. And I'm not hard to please, but this movie was a snore and too predicatable. The only time Mariah seemed natural was behind the mic singing. And even when she was suppose to be a poor street girl she looked like she had just stepped off the cover of a magazine. Mariah's real life and movie buddy Shawntae "Da Brat" Harris was wasted as the frumpy friend. Her bubbly personality has been wasted over and over again in small roles (Kazaam, Parenthood) and "Glitter" is no exception. So even though Da Brat was more Louise than Mariah was Billie, I wasn't satisfied. Though I'm no longer into Da Brat's music, I always thought she lit up the screen. But back to our main character - she seems like she's trying to act half the time and never quite pulls off the "homegirl" look. She remains Mariah Carey the whole time and never becomes Billie. Her boyfriend annoyed me from the begining and I didn't really feel she felt his unfortunate "fate" (I want spoil you, even if the film was crap). Our "vilian" (a rival producer) was just a gangster who did music. And the Billie's publiscists (who were supoose to be comical) fell flat. Basically, I left the theater wanting my money back.
But Glitter left me wanting a refund. And I'm not hard to please, but this movie was a snore and too predicatable. The only time Mariah seemed natural was behind the mic singing. And even when she was suppose to be a poor street girl she looked like she had just stepped off the cover of a magazine. Mariah's real life and movie buddy Shawntae "Da Brat" Harris was wasted as the frumpy friend. Her bubbly personality has been wasted over and over again in small roles (Kazaam, Parenthood) and "Glitter" is no exception. So even though Da Brat was more Louise than Mariah was Billie, I wasn't satisfied. Though I'm no longer into Da Brat's music, I always thought she lit up the screen. But back to our main character - she seems like she's trying to act half the time and never quite pulls off the "homegirl" look. She remains Mariah Carey the whole time and never becomes Billie. Her boyfriend annoyed me from the begining and I didn't really feel she felt his unfortunate "fate" (I want spoil you, even if the film was crap). Our "vilian" (a rival producer) was just a gangster who did music. And the Billie's publiscists (who were supoose to be comical) fell flat. Basically, I left the theater wanting my money back.
Bring It On
(2000)
Silly, but in a good way
1 August 2001
"Completely silly" could summarize "Bring it On", but oddly enough, not in a bad way. After seeing the previews on TV I wasn't interested. But being a Dark Angel and Buffy fan when I discovered Nicole Bilderback (Dark Angel) and Eliza Dushku and Clare Kramer (Buffy) were all in the film, I thought "might as well check it out. Plus, I was a long time fan of Dunst (since Interview with the Vampire) and Gabrielle Union is a nice up and coming talent. When the stupid cheer started at the begining, I thought "stupid as expected", but I found myself amused by the silliness of the film anyway. While making a point about these girls (and guys) being athletes in thier own right and even more accomplished then thier crappy football team, it also pokes fun at itself with "classic cheerleader images". It doesn't take itself to seriously, so you don't have to.
The Only reason I couldn't watch this movie again is because my sisters (who are between 5 and 8) love the movie and have watched it everyday since I purchased it. But if I hear "Brr, it's cold in here" one more time, I might have to burn the tape. But overall, I was amused by this film. I certainly think it's a good rental for a night of entertainment. And, like I said, my little sisters love it.
The Only reason I couldn't watch this movie again is because my sisters (who are between 5 and 8) love the movie and have watched it everyday since I purchased it. But if I hear "Brr, it's cold in here" one more time, I might have to burn the tape. But overall, I was amused by this film. I certainly think it's a good rental for a night of entertainment. And, like I said, my little sisters love it.
Tell Your Friends