I watched X-Men Origins: Wolverine last night. It was okay, for a popcorn movie. It's definitely not one of the better Marvel movies. Better than the first Hulk movie or the second Fantastic Four movie, although that's not saying much. I think I even liked X3 better.

I guess the biggest reason I wasn't thrilled with it was because it just felt like a summary of the events. The interesting stuff is completely rushed through and then it lingers on boring moments like when Logan was living with Kayla. Nothing happens and it's just a very dull section of the movie. Then we get a big old rush of action, but the action just seemed kind of pointless and disjointed. The plot is just not very good. I will admit that the fight scenes were amazing, some of the best fighting I've seen in a superhero movie. Wolverine actually fights like he knows what he's doing in this movie instead of just blundering around hacking people up like he did in the X-Men trilogy.

More things I disliked included the music. Harry Gregson-Williams is an average to mediocre composer, but this was bad, even for him. It was loud and obnoxious, kind of like a cross between a Hans Zimmer score and a John Williams score, all played by tone deaf musicians. Then in the emotional moments, it would suddenly shift into piano music that sounded like HGW's attempt to imitate James Newton Howard. It was nice, but completely out of place.

People have complained about there being too many characters in the movie and it's true, somewhat. There are a ton of mutants thrown in, basically to make the fanboys go "SQUEE!!", but I didn't mind it that much. It did annoy me that Emma Frost is never mentioned by name and that the mutant prisoners on the island are never really identified. Seeing Gambit was pretty awesome. Deadpool could have used more screentime, considering he was my favorite of the Team X people, other than Wolverine and Sabertooth.

Acting wasn't bad. I thought Hugh Jackman played Logan as more of a tame character, which doesn't really work for me. He only seems Wolverine-like in scenes with Sabertooth/Victor. Liev Schreiber was excellent as Sabertooth. He was creepy and vicious and scary, everything a good supervillain should be.

Oh, and whomever decided to use that horrendous digital effect on Patrick Stewart again needs to be fired. It looked cheesy in X3 and it looked worse in this movie. Maybe it's because I know what Patrick Stewart actually looked like 20 years ago, but it just looked like someone wearing a plastic Professor X mask to me.

So it wasn't awful, but it wasn't excellent. Good enough for one viewing and enjoyable enough, just not as good as the other X-Men movies. Hopefully the next Wolverine movie is better.

Whoa folks...spoiler boxes please!

Oh, my apologies! I didn't think about that. Oh, well, I'll remember next time.

I think Casablanca is very good but overrated. Ingrid Bergman is amazing, as usual. The only disappointing thing was that I didn't feel any chemistry between Humphrey Bogart's and Ingrid Bergman's characters (and this is known as one of the best love stories?) I could see Bergman was trying but Bogart was a cold hearted man (almost always is). He's got gravitas but he expresses less emotion than James Bond. Ouch!

QueenLu and ILF, could you please go back and edit your posts to include spoiler boxes? People could still see them and be spoiled.

I've only seen the Beckinsale version once, and it suffered a bit because I had already seen and loved the Paltrow version

I think I did the exact same thing with the Paltrow film. I agree that it's funnier and more sprightly, whereas the other is more lyrical and contemplative. I enjoy sections of both, and wish we could merge the two somehow. As for the music, I actually recall liking one of the jigs in the KB version very much, while I can't remember a note of Portman's score. Figures, eh?

I probably would have enjoyed Earnest more if I hadn't watched it immediately after reading the play. You're right that the flashback wasn't in any sense offensive, but it was just so unnecessary and random. I wish they could have cut that and the butt tattoo and pasted in some of the lines and half-lines they cut. I would have particularly liked to see Anna Massey tell the vicar that by remaining single, he had converted himself into a "permanent public temptation." You know, I was just struck today by the idea of a frail little woman like her carrying about the manuscript of a three-volume novel....

I'm so sad I missed Up in theaters! First time I've done that with a Pixar film. Will certainly be looking forward to it on DVD as well.

I watched His Girl Friday recently, and I thought it was hilarious - an excellent screwball comedy. I hope you and your hubby enjoy it, ww!

I think Casablanca is one of those films (like Citizen Kane or Gone wit the Wind) that is so hyped that it disappoints many of us, QueenLucy. But then again, I only saw it twice years ago, and both times I believe I had a fever. (Strange, no?) It's definitely time for a rewatch. Actually, I think my cinema prof is considering showing it in class at some point during the semester....

Hmm, something tells me you really dislike The Birds and PJ's King Kong..... I'll agree that neither are "great" films, but they are fun.

See, I didn't even find them fun. In fact, I almost went to sleep during King Kong. For me, dinosaur stampedes devoid of any plot-related purpose = boring. And sensitive, emo Kong going ice skating = hilarious. The Birds is slightly better, but still....

*waits (im)patiently for lys' review of David Copperfield*

Well, here it is at last. I'm putting it in spoilers for those who haven't read the book or seen any of the film versions, as this one involves a frame story that is pretty crucial to the movie as a whole. Apologies for the length, but I got a little carried away.

[spoiler=David Copperfield (1969)]What can I say about this? And who can I recommend it to? Certainly the most original of all Copperfield adaptations, it opens with a depressed David lately returned to England, unsure what to do, and somehow unable to confront his old friends, despite the distance he's traveled. His story is then told in a series of flashbacks. Some people find this a brilliant way of transferring the story to another medium, whereas others think it an abomination. Certainly it causes problems, as it will both alienate purists and confuse newcomers to the story.

The notion of a catastrophic event (or, in this case, an effort to cope with the past) leading David to begin writing the book is not one I object to in theory; indeed, the 2000 TNT miniseries did something rather similar with positive effects. However, to spend so much time on the frame story distracts from what Dickens actually wrote, and having Agnes go to comfort David in his depression means that we are cheated of Dickens' own wonderful climax.

What I do object to is the way the flashbacks skip from one event to another without any logical progression; even some narration from David would have helped to alleviate the choppiness of the whole thing. For example, we see David alternately in the factory and at the Micawbers' for about five minutes, then suddenly Micawber shows up disguised at the factory, tells David he is being pursued by the tax officer, and suggests he seek out the aunt he has often spoken of. Then, suddenly, he's trudging off to Aunt Betsey's. It's so very sudden!

Thankfully the pacing improves greatly once David grows up - indeed, almost 3/4 of the film is devoted to his adult life. There is still some jumpiness, there are still scenes missing, but my opinion of the film improved immeasurably when the script hit that point. I was actually impressed to find a few things here that aren't in other versions: Steerforth's darker influence on David, for instance, and the inclusion of Traddles as a three-dimensional character.

In the end, the main reason to see the film is the cast. There have been some starry Coppefields but this beats all; I can't tell you how many Lords and Dames are present here. One of the few no-names is Robin Phillips, our leading man, but he does an impressive job. Along with Hugh Dancy, he's one of the few Davids to show any charisma in the role, and creates a really complex portrait out of a pretty simplistic fictional character. It was hard to judge his younger counterpart, Alastair Mackenzie, because his screen time was so scarce, but I found his scene on the riding with Barkis (played by the excellent Cyril Cusack) absolutely charming.

Interestingly, Phillips isn't given first billing in the film, and most of the cheap DVDs and VHSs the movie has been released on sport the name of Sir Lawrence [sic] Olivier on the cover! Well, I suppose if you've got Larry, you bill him first, but it does seem a little ridiculous when his role is that of Mr. Creakle! This is one of the more obvious, self-satisfied star turns in the film, made alongside Richard Attenborough's Mr. Tungay, but the two of them seem to be having so much fun that you forgive them for being unsubtle.

Sir Ralph Richardson is unquestionably the finest actor ever to play Mr. Micawber, which does not necessarily mean he is the best comedian. Indeed, his opening scenes probably have a bit too much of one's typical British reserve about them (and he is not aided by the fact that he has to establish his character in a trifling number of minutes), but he warms up later on. His razor scene (transposed, of course, to the adult section) is excellent, as is his denunciation of Uriah. At least as good, if not better, is Dame Wendy Hiller as his wife. I especially love her drunken exclamations of "I'll never leave Mr. Micawber!" A priceless duo.

Unlike the character of Micawber, I am almost always satisfied with portrayls of Aunt Betsey, and Dame Edith Evans is no exception. Only ... she is much older and less mobile than I pictured the character, so I'm not sure I like her nearly as much as some of the others. That said, she doesn't have much to work with, since she is divested of both her original introduction on the eve of David's birth as well as her many exclamations of "Janet, donkeys!" I was so very glad to see her tell Uriah Heap to stop acting like an eel, though; that's one of my favorite lines from the book and I've never seen it uttered onscreen before.

The Mr. Peggoty/L'il Emily/Steerforth plot line is probably the best developed here, and I can't imagine a more lovable Dan Peggoty than Michael Redgrave. I defy anyone not to have goosebumps during his speeches about seeking Emily.

Ron Moody, who's most famous for playing another Dickensian villain (Fagin in Oliver!) turns in a writhing, darkly humorous portrayal as Uriah. He really makes me wish there was more time spent on this plot line, but unfortunately the other main component of it, Susan Hampshire's Agnes, doesn't. She's a lovely woman, but she just isn't Agnes Wickfield, and neither the fact that she is a blond (not at all how I imagined the character!) nor the ridiculous romance novel-y role she is given in the frame story help her at all.

Susan Hampshire, the creepy little girl from The Innocents, has here matured into a lovely Dora, and one of her costars in that film, Megs Jenkins, just is Clara Peggoty in a way that one regrets her role is so minimal. Also here is a very young Anna Massey, who barely gets two lines of her own as Miss Murdstone, but creates a lasting impression with her turgid reading of "Stubbornness won't do; it must be crushed."

Oh, and extra kudos to the squeaky penguin toy and wheezing walrus who teamed up to play the voice of Jip. I swear, I've never heard anything quite like it.[/spoiler]

I think Casablanca is one of those films (like Citizen Kane or Gone wit the Wind) that is so hyped that it disappoints many of us, QueenLucy.[/spoiler]

I understand where you're coming from. Personally, I loved it, but I have seen several of those types of "overly hyped" movies that turn out to be huge disappointments. Honestly, I don't like Casablanca as "love story" (though many people like it in that sense), I like it as a drama/action movie. The chemistry between Bogart and Ingrid wasn't good enough to be "World's Greatest Love Story." (I agree with you on that, W4J.)

Yes, Casablanca is a great drama (but you can't really call it drama/action, because there isn't a whole lot of 'action').

Gone with the Wind bored me out of my skull and Citizen Kane had some very innovative camera work (for it's time) but I was severely disappointed with both, especially Wind.

I didn't think "action" was the right word, either. It's a mix of drama with something else, (whatever it is)... .

Actually, I loved Gone With the Wind, but not everyone I know does. All the guys I know who saw it said they were bored by it. Most of the girls, on the other hand, loved it. I guess it's more of a "chick flick," like Breakfast at Tiffany's or An Affair to Remember.

...And I still need to see Citizen Kane.

I watched this like 1980's movie called problem child.It was alright but not great.

I watched Gone With the Wind a few months ago for the first time. I had heard so many mixed opinions of it, I felt I should see for myself! As it turned out, I found it to be very epic! Meaning the colors, the emotions, the story were all on such a huge scale that I was left wondering how people seeing in the theaters for the first time must have felt. No wonder it was such a huge success! Personally I didn't like it.

Last week I watched Pride and Prejudice (2005) for the first time! I had read the book and seen the A&E version but somehow I had never gotten around to seeing this version. I made a big mistake in waiting so long! It was fantastic and I loved it! I loved the scenery, the actors, the character, the faithful adaption of the book. It was rushed and obviously things were cut out but fitting that whole book into a 2 hour film (probably less than that) was amazing! One or two scenes I would have liked to be done differently, but overall it was much better than I expected!

Any thoughts on the other Jane Austen movies like Northanger Abbey and Sense and Sensibility? (None of which I have seen.)

Ah, lys, 'tis good to read your David Copperfield essay review.

We saw Taken (Liam Neeson) last weekend. A disturbing movie, to be sure, considering that this type of tale is not fictional. But a couple of things bugged me:
(1) No matter how many times Neeson's character appears to get shot at directly, he never gets severly hit/hurt, but when he shoots at the bad guys, they pretty well always get it.

(2) Of much greater import: after that harrowing and traumatic experience in which her friend died, and the daughter, herself, was treated horrifically, she seemed to recover remarkably well at the end. Very unrealistic.

Overall, though, it's interesting and exciting to watch once or twice. Neeson, as always, is excellent.

Random observations on movies mentioned earlier:

Casablanca - While I agree that it's been hyped up to an almost-impossible degree and the chemistry between Bogey and Bergman may not be magical, it's still among my movie favorites. I remember the first time I saw it, many years ago, and just about fell asleep in disappointment. Years later I watched it again and noticed more, like the humorous little one liners and such.

I'm also one of those people who was very bored by Gone With the Wind, and never finished it despite several attempts. Maybe I should try it again, given my experience with Casablanca.

Any thoughts on the other Jane Austen movies like Northanger Abbey and Sense and Sensibility?

I'm among those NarniaWebbers who enjoy the 1995 version of Sense and Sensibility with Emma Thompson as Elinor. Other notables include Kate Winslet as Marianne and Alan Rickman as Col. Brandon. A while back I found the DVD in the $5 rack at Target.

Speaking of inexpensive films, that same rack recently provided the DVD of Bend It Like Beckham. It's directed by Bollywood's Gurinder Chadha, whose Bride and Prejudice I enjoy on occasion, so I gave it a go.

It's pretty predictable, plot-wise, and I didn't think it was as much fun as B&P - no catchy music, for one thing. Rated PG-13 in the US for language and other content. Try B&P instead.

We watched A Knight's Tale on Friday. It was 6.5 of 10. It had good acting and the plot was pretty good, but the music was just weird.

SnowAngel, you've never heard of Queen's music before? Or do you mean their music didn't really suit the medieval era of the movie? I thought it was enjoyable. You don't see A Knight's Tale for historical accuracy.

W4J - I'm going to respond for SnowAngel this time; she's on kitchen duty getting ready for a party tonight.

First off, I believe the only time we've ever heard any of the musical selections used in A Knight's Tale has been on the radio at the orthodontist's office; so, no, we're not very familiar with the music. Our musical tastes generally do not tend to rock music (Third Day excluded). However, we did like the quirky, modern twists to the story - minus the loooooong

We did enjoy all of the acting, except for Jocelyn's character. Not that I have anything against Shannyn Sossamon, but I felt that Jocelyn was demanding and arrogant. All of William's friends were hilarious and we particularly enjoyed Paul Bettany's performance as Chauncer - quite a change from the surgeon in Master & Commander. While it was difficult to see Rufus Sewell as the villian (after his excellent portrayal of Thomas Clarkson in Amazing Grace), he was superb as Count Ademar.

~Scarlet

Scarlet, thanks for the reply mate.

Yes, I didn't like Jocelyn's character either. I love your comment about speeding up the dance sequence. Hilarious! Third Day wouldn't be classed as 'rock' but I understand your point. The music was very 80's, so if you haven't been exposed to it at parties or home (or on the radio) yes, it's likely you wouldn't have heard of them.

Scarlet: Isn't that odd when people switch between good and evil in different movies? I had a very hard time accepting Alan Rickman as a blond romantic lead in Sense and Sensibility after knowing him as black-haired, slimy Professor Snape.

arabesque: stargazer is right. The 1995 S&S is excellent. Thompson won an Oscar for the screenplay. There are two good versions of Emma that both came out in 1996. Lys, wisewoman, and I discussed them over the last few pages. I personally enjoy the one with Gwyneth Paltrow along with wisewoman, but Lys likes the Kate Beckinsdale one. It seems that whichever you watch first is the one you like. As for the others, there have been no major adaptations of Northanger Abbey or Mansfield Park. ITV has recent ones of each which are not all that great (MP is especially not good) and BBC has several over the decades. A version of MP was made for the big screen, but it is barely recognizeable as the original novel, or so I've heard (it's rated R, so it's quite different). NWebbers like the Ciaran Hinds/Amanda Root Persuasion, but I was less than enamoured. But Ly could probably tell you a great deal about it.

I watched X-Men for the first time the other day. I was impressed. I enjoyed it, but I've always had a soft spot for James Marsden (Cyclops) since I saw him in Superman Returns, so I felt kind of so-so about Wolverine. I didn't really like Rogue all that much and Halle Berry's accent was terrible. I couldn't even tell what it was supposed to be! But Ian McKellen was excellent (of course) and Jackman did a pretty good job. How is X-2?

X-2 is regarded by most as the best of the X-Men movies and I quite agree.

Casablanca,
I simply love that movie, all of it.

Gone With the Wind,
I think is a great movie too but it's a bit long. I need to see this one again to know how I really feel about it.

Pride and Prejudice (2005),
I simply love it. Joe Wright did an excellent job with that movie.
Sense and Sensibility is also a great movie, won an Oscar, I thought it was great but personally prefer P&P.

As for Citizen Kane,
I didn't connect with that movie at all.
The only thing I did like was the final scene.