Brief Synopsis (with no spoilers...I promise!):  The setting is the distant future, and Earth has been abandoned by all human life due to the overabundance of trash build-up over the years.  It hints that the Buy-N-Large (think Wal-mart on steroids) corporation is to blame.  Wall-E, a garbage collecting robot and the last of his kind, and his pet cockroach are all the personality left on our desolate planet.  Wall-E continues to do what he is programed to do, with occasional sidetracks as he's fascinated with all of our left-over trinkets and gadgets and has built up quite a collection of odds and ends.  He has everything from an old VCR player and homemade tapes to silverware to a strapless bra (which he has no idea of the function, by the way).  Life for Wall-E seems fairly lonely and mundane until the arrival of Eve, a recon robot sent from the massive space ship (think cruise ship in space) where all the overweight, lazy humans have been for hundreds of years.  She's sent to see if life is sustainable once again on Earth.  In the meantime she meets Wall-E before she indeed does find a sign of life.  Her attraction to the quirky little robot doesn't stop her from her mission however, and she is soon heading back to the mother ship with her info....but lonely Wall-E hitches a ride, and that's where all the fun begins!

Why We Went to See It:  It's a Pixar movie.  Period.

Why You Might  Want to See It:  It's a Pixar movie.  Period.  And it's better than Ratatouille, which I didn't like near as well as most Pixars.  Pixar has the best writers on the planet.  They are simply amazing.

Why You Might Not Want to See It:  If you have very small children they might be bored at the beginning because there's little dialogue, and the plot is built through Wall-E's actions and quirky personality only.  That is absolutely the only reason I can think of.  Of course you don't have to see it in the theater.

Will You Die if You Don't See It?:  Eventually, yes.  If you boycot this film, I'd say you have approximately one year to live....so plenty of time for the dvd.

A Good Substitute:  Well, if you haven't seen other Pixar movies, go rent them all.  Other than that, there isn't one.  Go see this.

• Comments (6) • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Brief Synopsis (with no spoilers...I promise!):  Po, an adult, overweight, lazy male Panda, begrudgingly and mundanely works in his family's noodle restaurant.  Secretly, he fantasizes about being a Kung Fu master and is a closet-fan of the infamous Furious Five, made up of the impressive likes of Tigress,  Monkey,  Praying Mantis,  Crane, and Viper, led by their master Shifu (and to be perfectly honest, I'm still a bit baffled about what type of animal he is.  Annaleigh thinks some kind of rodent.  Harrison is leaning more towards a small fox.  If anyone finds out for sure, please let us know).  Through a bumbling set of amusing incidents, Po is the unlikely personality chosen to defeat the likes of an angry, vengeful snow leopard, Tai Lung (or something like that).  The plot centers around the unlikely hero and his road to self-discovery.

Why we went to see it:  Well, when you have this in your life on an everyday basis....

...is there any question that you must go see a movie like this?

Why you MIGHT want to see it:  It is a fun, family-friendly flick if there ever was one.  Because it was Dreamworks, I figured it could go either way in the crudity department, but this film stays on the straight and narrow.  It was even without the cursory reference to flatulence that almost all kid movies contain these days.  And it was genuinely funny.  I have to admit that I'm a bit of a fan of Jack Black.  While I haven't seen all of his films, the ones I have seen always exhibit an adorable, extremely likable kind of humor, which I find refreshing in our days of vulgarity-for-laughs.  He is the perfect voice for Po. By the way, did you know that my brother-in-law, Patrick, is a dead-ringer for Jack Black?  Look at this...

Patrick (and his lovely wife, Amy):

and Jack Black:

Similiar, eh?  Well, he has gotten stopped a time or two. (And is it just me, or does Mr. Black have a very visible booger in his nose?!)  Many years ago, Patrick was also mistaken as this guy by a two-year old...

Anyway, enough about my famous-looking brother-in-law.  Let's get back to the movie....It seems that the producers went to great lengths to make sure it was a star-studded affair, with other voice talents including Angelina Jolie, Dustin Hoffman, and of course, Jackie Chan.  The animation is decent too, almost with a 3-D feel at times.

Why you MIGHT NOT want to see it:  It is rated PG for sequences of martial arts action, but honestly this surprises me.  This movie is no more violent than the Bugs Bunny cartoons that I used to watch on Saturday mornings back in the late 70s.  The snow leopard character might be a bit scary for a very small child, and the scene where he escapes from prison is mildly intense, but I would think most children about 5 or 6 and up could handle this just fine.  Now, it doesn't just beg to be seen on the big screen, so if you want to save a buck...or twenty...just wait for the DVD.  If the movie has a weakness, it's that it's predictable...for adults anyway.

Will you die if you don't see it?:  No, but you might as well see it anways.

A good substitute:  Well, as far as animated family movies go, I don't think one can compete with Pixar as far as plot goes.  Still, this one is much better than the standard Shrek fair we've been bombarded with of late.  If it's a martial arts movie you're looking for, then this is the one to see with your family....or just watch the above video of Harrison and his friend performing their extreme form demonstration from the last tournament we attended.  They aren't pandas, but they are dressed in black and white.

***A note about Flashback Friday***

Due to circumstances beyond my control, I will not be able to blog for a few days, so I will not be hosting a Flashback Friday this week.  If you had a good one, please hold onto it for another week, and I'll get back to you next Friday....or just go ahead and post it on your own if you'd like.  I haven't copyrighted it or anything.

• Comments (9) • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Before I get to this review, I just wanted to tell you all how much I've missed hanging around this site.  I miss blogging more regularly.  I miss reading your blogs.  I miss conversing back and forth with some of you.  But I have just been busy.  And tired.  I'm in my second trimester now and while I have a modest amount of more energy, I would still rather take a nap than win the lottery.  Hopefully soon I will be back to normal.  Ha!  What am I thinking?!  My life will never be normal again....but I think you knew what I meant.

OK, now on with the review...

Brief Synopsis (with no spoilers...I promise!):  Man...this is a bit tough to summarize, but I'll do my best.  The movie opens with an aging Indiana Jones being brought by force by a group of Russians to a military warehouse in remote Nevada in the 1950s.  They are led by the villainous Irina Spalko played smartly by Cate Blanchett and are hoping to find the remains of some kind of space creature that crashed years before.  Jones escapes, of course, only to find out later that the college where he teaches is giving him a leave of absence because of some complications with his dealings with the Russians (remember...it's set in the 50s!).  On his way out of town, he's detained by a young "greaser" named Mutt Williams played by Shia LeBeouf, who tells him that Jones' old colleague and Williams' mother are being held captive in Peru and that it has something to do with a crystal skull that he unearthed there.  Needless to say, the same group of Russians are also interested in said skull, and thus we have the makings of an iconic Indiana Jones flick.

Why I went to see it:  Good grief!  Why wouldn't I?  It is Indiana Jones after all, and it has been 19 years since the last one after all.  I love the 1st and 3rd IJ movies.  I don't like the 2nd, Temple of Doom so much.  After reading several reviews, it was mostly touted as much better than ToD, so we decided that we'd see it.

Why you MIGHT want to see it:  If you have seen the others, you might as well see this one.  It is pretty good.  I was especially relieved to see that they allowed Indy to age along with Harrison Ford.  It would have been disappointing to see him still womanizing, still acting like a 40 year-old when he's obviously in the grandfather stage.  Yet, it would have been even more disappointing if he hadn't still had the same swagger and confidence that movie audiences had grown to love two decades ago.  The movie keeps the balance.  It has all the frights and thrills and cliff-hangers (literally!) that we've grown accustomed to with the original trilogy.  You won't leave the theater a changed person or with much to think on in a deeper realm, but it's a good popcorn flick.  I also believe that it is the cleanest film of the whole franchise, as I guess the makers thought Indy was too old for his former suggested bed-romping.  Just for the record, we're letting our kids see this one.

Why you MIGHT NOT want to see it:  It is rated PG-13 for adventure violence and scary images.  There is a scene with some large CGI ants that could be particularly disturbing for kids.  For the most part though, everything else is along the same lines as the original trilogy as far as scary images and violence goes.  There's also some language, but most of what I heard was uttered during intense action sequences, and I always find that not as noticeable.  The plot IS very different from your typical Indiana Jones movie, but I can't really go into it much without spoiling it for you.  I know some major fans, and they were a bit disappointed with the ending.

Will you die if you don't see it?: No, fan or not, I think it's safe to say that you won't, but you'll probably be glad that you saw it in the end.

A good substitute:  Honestly, I don't think anything compares with Raiders or Crusade.  However, when I saw the first National Treasure movie I thought it was in the same ballpark.  The second was just as good.

Let me know if you see it and what you thought about it!

• Comments (8) • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Brief Synopsis (with no spoilers....I promise!):  Tony Stark, played by the amazing Robert Downey Jr., is a genius, a playboy, a multi-millionaire, and a weapons manufacturer...not necessarily in that order.  The movie opens with a weapons demonstration in Afghanistan where he is ultimately injured and captured by would-be terrorists who insist that he build his newest missile for them.  He spends months building an armored suit, which will be his means of escape, under the guise of completing their orders.  When he finally is rescued and returned back to the states, he makes the surprise announcement that his company will no longer be manufacturing weapons, while he spends his personal time constructing an updated suit for his own personal reasons.  These events set the viewer on a whirlwind ride as Tony sets down the road of self-discovery, betrayal, and eventual super-heroism.

Why I went to see it:  I am not much of a comic book movie fan and had actually never even heard of Iron Man.  However, there was a lot of hype surrounding the release of this movie, and I kept reading review after review that was praising this movie on many different levels, so it sort of peaked my curiosity.  Then my kids saw a preview of it and wanted to see it.  We generally preview all PG-13 movies before they see them, so Big D and I left them with Indiana Mimi one Friday night and went to see it.

Why you MIGHT want to see it:  Because this movie ROCKS!  Like I said, I'm not much of a comic book movie fan, but I loved this film.  We've seen three of the blockbusters lately (this one, Prince Caspian...which I've already reviewed...and the new Indiana Jones...which I'll be reviewing later this week), but this is the one I'd see again.  The acting is amazing for this genre, including the likes of Downey Jr., who is incomparable in his role, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Jeff Bridges.  The effects are amazing.  The plot is riveting, and it actually feels believable at most points.  I loved watching Tony come full circle, which I won't explain fully because it would spoil it, but Downey Jr., who has had personal battles of his own, handles this characterization with a lot of finesse.  All in all, it is well worth the price of admission to see it in the theaters.

Why you MIGHT NOT want to see it:  It is rated PG-13 for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and brief suggestive content.  Just in case you're wondering we decided to NOT let our kids see it in the theaters for two reasons.  1.  The previews they showed before the movie were much worse than anything actually in the movie itself and ....2.  The "brief suggestive content" was a little too much for my two.  These scenes occur early in the movie when the plot is establishing Tony's playboy, womanizing ways, but the images were not something for young eyes.  They are brief and not glorified as acceptable behavior as Tony's "redemption" later indicates, so we will let them see it on DVD someday and just skip the offending scenes.  There's also a bit of bad language.

Will you die if you don't see it?:  Yes, I think you just might.  Better get to a theater quick!

A good substitute:  I'm sure a comic book fan would tell you to just read those, but I have never read a comic book in my life, and I don't plan to start now.  The only movie series of this genre that even comes close to this one, in my opinion, is the Spiderman trilogy, which are pretty good, especially the last one.  But I still think they are a distant second to Iron Man.  Seriously, get off of my blog and go see this movie.....now! (Just leave your kids, oh say 16 and under, at home!)

• Comments (8) • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Brief Synopsis (with no spoilers...I promise!):  The movie begins with the birth of a baby, which one quickly learns is the only son of Caspian's throne-greedy uncle.  Caspian is immediately desperate for his life and on the run, fleeing the human kingdom he has known his entire life and finding himself in the unknown and rather savage world of Narnia.  He blows a horn, which summons the kings and queens of old, whom we all know as Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy.  The four have been back in England again, as children, for a year now and are just wondering when they will ever be summoned back to the magical world of Narnia again.  On arrival back they slowly discover that 1300 years have passed since their reign and many things have changed since the new human rule has forced the mystical Narnians into hiding and exile.  Joining forces with many colorful characters and Caspian himself, they begin their quest to right what is wrong with Narnia, all the while wondering where the mighty Aslan is hiding and why he won't show himself to their aid.

Why We Went to See It:  This is what Harrison picked for his birthday celebration this year.  So off we trekked to the crowded movie theater on opening weekend with six extra children and an Indiana Mimi in tow...

I was super-paranoid about getting eleven seats all together, so we arrived about 30 minutes early.  The theater was packed later.  Oh, and here are Indiana Mimi and I...

We're a photogenic pair, are we not?  And for those of you wanting to see pregnancy pictures of me, the above definitely counts.  That's a pregnant tongue if I've ever seen one!

A Narnia cake was challenging....especially one I would have to transport.  I finally settled on just sticking some Narnia action figures on a green sheet cake.  Here's Edmund and friendly griffin sinking into neon green cream cheese icing...

Why You MIGHT want to see it:  Because it's great!  I liked the first one, and this one is just as good.  The first fifteen minutes or so are a little slow, but once the action begins, you find yourself swept right along.  The movie is over two hours long and not one child asked to go to the restroom during the entire length of it.  I can't think of a better endorsement than that.

Why You MIGHT NOT want to see it:  Honestly, about the only reason I can think of is if you are some kind of CS Lewis purist because the makers definitely mess with the plot on this one, unlike the first film.  World Magazine recently wrote an excellent article focusing on some of these differences, which include Susan actually fighting in the battles, the inclusion of some extra battle scenes and Peter's internal struggle with his hubris.  Another difference is they add a little repressed romance between Susan and Prince Caspian, which was just silly.  I, for one, wasn't bothered by these additions much, as I wondered how well this book would translate to film in the pure form.  I think they did a decent job without tampering with Lewis's integrity.  Also, if you have very young children, you should know that this film is darker and more violent than the first, but I feel it still retains and earns its PG rating.

Will You Die if You Don't See It?:  I'd say if you saw the first one, you just might if you don't attempt to see this one.

A Good Substitute:  Really, the only thing I can think of is the actual book.  These films are turning out to be the most family-friendly action/adventure/fantasy films on the market.

• Comments (10) • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Synopsis (with no spoilers...I promise):  This was a very different movie and sort of difficult to explain, but I will do my best.  The President of the US, played by William Hurt is attending a peace-making event in Spain.  Much controversy surrounds his arrival and so you have the obligatory crowds protesting a current war that the US is involved in.  Ho hum...sound familiar?  Anyway, he is accompanied by a seasoned group of Secret Service agents, led by characters played by Dennis Quaid and Matthew Fox of "Lost" fame.  Dennis Quaid's character is newly back on the job after taking a bullet for the President several months earlier.  Obviously there's some question as to whether he should be there and is up to the job so soon, which plays into the drama which quickly unfolds.

The movie is told (and re-told) through several different points of view, thus the title.  We begin with the media's look at the events as they view their surroundings from their mobile unit on multiple screens.  Shortly after the President's arrival he is shot and then a bomb goes off.  I know it sounds like I just gave away something major, but trust me....I didn't.  You can see all of this just by watching the trailer.  The action of the day is repeated, every time giving a new character's "vantage point" and a little more detail until in the end it is finally solved.

Why I went to see it:  Actually, Big D and I saw this nearly 2 weeks ago, but I'm just now getting the chance to write it up for you.  I wanted to see it immediately after first seeing the trailer because I absolutely love movies like this.  Big D does too.  We're going through a bit of withdrawal since the writers' strike and Keifer Sutherland's jail time which has, thus far,  prevented another season of "24".  This film seemed to be in the same genre, so we got to a theater to see it just as fast as we could.

Why you MIGHT want to see it:  It is really good.  I was kept on the edge of my seat the whole time, and really regretted drinking a medium Diet Coke and having to go to the bathroom mid-movie.  The acting is decent and features many acclaimed actors and actresses in smaller roles, such as Sigourney Weaver, Forrest Whitaker, and the others I've already mentioned.  For a political movie, with the exception of the protesters at the beginning, Hollywood left their politics out of the plot for a change.

Why you MIGHT NOT want to see it:  If you didn't like the movie Groundhog Day, you might want to skip this one.  The action was repeated several different times.  I was okay with it because I was trying to piece together the clues from each point of view, but it was a bit tedious after about the third time,  and I kept hearing light collective sighs from the others in the audience when it would rewind again.

It's rated PG-13 for sequences of intense violence and action, some disturbing images and brief strong language, so it's not for kids.  I think it would be fine for a mature teenager though.  The violence is not very bloody, but there are some jumpy scenes.  There is mild language throughout, but it's mostly in the places of high intensity, so not really of the gratuitous or even noticeable variety.  Dennis Quaid's character utters the f-word towards the end of the movie.

If you are one to laugh and mock unreal circumstances and over-the-top situations, then you might not like this.  Big D was in the military and is a sceptic at heart, and he had some laughable moments during this film.  I, on the other hand, don't care about that kind of stuff.  I know it's a movie, and I just want to enjoy it in the moment and not think about whether it could really happen.  So we, as a couple, have a lot of "Sssshhhh...." and "Cut it out, Big D," moments when we watch this genre of film or TV.

Will you die if you don't see this movie?  It's highly unlikely, but you will probably enjoy it.  It's not one that begs to be seen on the big screen, so just wait for the DVD if you're interested.

A good substitute:  Rent the first -fourth seasons of "24".  The last few seasons got a little silly, even for me.  Any of the Tom Clancy book movies are along these lines too, and I've always enjoyed Harrison Ford more than Dennis Quaid.

Just an FYI, if you ever want to further investigate my movies or any movie, for that matter, I've always found www.christiananswers.net to do a very thorough job from a Christian perspective.

So, what should I see next?  Any suggestions or requests?

• Comments (5) • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

My last movie review was received with a fairly decent response, and some even asked me to continue with them.  I always aim to please and will now be attending as many movies that Big D will allow (don't hold your breath....it probably won't be all that many).  You asked for it!

Synopsis (with no spoilers...I promise): The Grace family, including the newly single mom played by Mary-Louise Parker (who many may remember from Fried Green Tomatoes), sister Mallory, and twin brothers Jared and Simon, who are both played by the talented Freddie Highmore, are forced to move to their great aunt's abandoned and creepy Spiderwick Estate in order to save money.  Family relations are rocky, mostly centering on Jared, who is angry at their father for abandoning them for "someone else."  Things look grim as they are stuck in the middle of nowhere, with not much to do except fight with one another, until Jared happens upon an old journal of his great, great uncle's, The Spiderwick Chronicles, which bears a warning not to open and read it or face the severe consequences.  Jared, of course, does what any 14 or so rebellious, angst-ridden young person would do:  he breaks the seal and unleashes the fury of all fairydom on him and his family.  I, for one, am thankful he did it, or it would have been a very short movie.

Why I went to see it:  Well, I think the interest started when our family saw the preview before Christmas when we went to see National Treasure 2.  My kids, in particular, love any movie in the fantasy genre, so had been waiting for this movie's release anxiously.  Also, Annaleigh listened to these books on tape a couple of years ago and enjoyed them.  Finally, we have a smallish sort of building project going on in our house, and the downstairs has been a wreck for about 2 weeks now.  Big D's helper was going to be in and out all afternoon, so it seemed like a good idea to get the kids out of the house for a while.  Finally, Annaleigh, who has more spending money than I do these days, offered to buy our tickets.  So off we went!

Why you MIGHT want to see it:  It really was a highly entertaining movie. I don't always enjoy the kid movies that I see with my children, but this one kept me interested, mostly with the action, as the plot wasn't all that deep.  It was clean, with a PG rating for scary creature action and violence, peril and some thematic elements (although I think I also remember one mild curse word and a few "Oh my God"s).  The acting was good, if not a bit over-shadowed by all of the CGI effects.   Freddie Highmore, who brought me to tears with his performance in Finding Neverland a few years ago, does a good job of playing the twin brothers, whose personalities are as different as night and day.  I also liked the brownie character, voiced by Martin Short.  The CGI effects are amazing.  One can easily forget that the trolls, fairies and griffins don't really exist.  For this reason, this is a good one to see on the big screen.  Finally, while it takes a while to get there, I think this movie has a positive family message.

Why you MIGHT NOT want to see it:  Obviously, if you usually avoid films with magic, scary creatures, etc., then this is not for you, as the plot revolves around all of that.  While it is not nearly as scary as the above poster makes it seem (the fanged creatures that are pictured are actually chubby knee-high trolls that wouldn't give most kids over six nightmares), there are some intense scenes of the kids being chased by monster-like things. The ogre, who is the chief bad dude, IS scary, but he has very little screen time.  I think I jumped in my seat about three different times, although I did not scream out, as I have been known to do on occasion.  A highly sensitive or very young child would not do well in this movie.  The siblings in the beginning are disrespectful to one another and to their mom (although this gets worked out in the end).  Don't go see this movie if you are one who is bothered by the "why factor."  Some plot details are just never explained fully and just really don't make a lot of sense.  I'm okay with this, since I sometimes don't make a lot of sense either.

Will you die if you don't see this movie?:  No , but your kids might think they will.  They won't though.  I promise.  If you have heart problems, you might die if you DO see it, since, like I said, there are some intense moments and some seat-jumpers.

A good substitute:  Oh, really, any good fantasy flick will do.  Chronicles of Narnia comes to mind (and the next in the series, Prince Caspian is being released mid-May).

Please remember I am not a professional movie-reviewer.  So go easy on me if you don't agree with me, or if you decide to see this and then your thirteen old has to sleep with you for a week.  Okay?  Okay!

• Comments (9) • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

I've always had this secret desire to write movie reviews.  It is one of my dream jobs, along with a cosmetic color-namer and the person who checks the buggies as you leave Costco.  My sister-in-law Susan and I used to joke about being the movie reviewer for World Magazine or Focus on the Family or something like that so that we would get paid to go see all the movies and then write articles about how and why Christians should not see them.  So, I'm thinking maybe someone in the journalism world might stumble upon this blog someday and hire me on the spot.  It's not likely, but one can dream.

Synopsis (with no spoilers....I promise):  Katherine Heigl plays Jane, the perfect friend, daughter, sister, employee, and bridesmaid.  The plot centers on the fact that she has been in 27 weddings to date, and there is no hope in sight that she is planning a wedding of her own.  She is hopelessly and ridiculously in love with her boss, played by Edward Burns.  When her younger sister comes to visit and also falls for him, things begin to go downhill as Jane has a front row seat for their whirlwind romance and engagement.  Things really get interesting when newspaper journalist Kevin, played by James Marsden, becomes interested in Jane's eternal bridesmaid story and wants to cover her sister's wedding.  Think Wedding Planner meets Two Weeks Notice meets any chick flick where the main girl is never going to find Mr. Right.

Why I went to see it:  I had no idea what this film was about.   After church one day a friend said, "A few of us are thinking about going to see this new chick flick...."  I immediately said, "Great!  I'm coming too!"  I really don't get out much with adult women.  Now, looking back on it, I'm really not sure if I was even invited.  I was so unsure of the movie, that when I went to the window to buy my ticket, I couldn't remember the exact number in the title, and said, "One for....ummm...oh...ummmm....Twenty-something Dresses," to which the girl working behind the window just stared at me like I'd sprouted another head.  I tried again.  "I want a ticket for the Dress movie."  She gave me the ticket without saying anything.  Geesh...how many movies about dresses were they showing that day?!  Anyway, I say all of this to tell you that I had no expectations going into this except that I was anticipating a light-hearted romantic comedy about an unknown number of dresses.

Why you MIGHT want to see it:  It was great, mindless fun.  It was a typical romantic comedy, and of course I and anyone else of average intelligence could figure out how it was going to go down in the first 15 minutes or so, but who cares?  Plot is not necessarily why we go see these types of films.  Neither is realism.  Interestingly, a couple of the girls I went with to see the film are single and in their thirties and have been in a number of weddings over the past decade or so, and they didn't seem one bit affected by the film, except to find it cute and funny like us married chicks.  The acting was very decent as well, which is sometimes not a major factor with this genre.  The girl playing the sister was the only one who came across as cheesy because she could not hold her head still when she talked, but she was supposed to be an annoying character, and she achieved that at least.  Most importantly, it really was very funny.  The scene where Jane and Kevin sing along with a juke box to "Benny and the Jets," was worth the price of admission alone.

Why you MIGHT NOT want to see it:  The MPAA has rated this film PG-13 for language, some innuendo and sexuality.  I thought the language especially was a little over the top.  Jane's character, in particular, who is supposed to be a nice, sweet girl, just seemed a little out of place saying the s-word repeatedly.  As for the other subject matter, the film takes a 30-something, big city mentality to relationships which means that every character has no problem with relations outside of marriage.  I found Jane's friend, played by the usually charming Judy Greer, particularly offensive in her casualness to intimacy.  Nothing is ever shown, but much is implied.  And then the movie is extremely cliched and predictable, as I've already stated.  It might be better, in that case, to rent in the future rather than seeing it in theaters....unless you're desperate like I was for adult fellowship, and then, by all means spend the $9 for admission and then an extra $4.50 for a Diet Coke.  You also might want to skip this if you're male, at least until the DVD is released.  The theater was packed when I saw it, and I counted only two men in the entire theater, and they looked very coerced.

Will you die if you don't see this movie?:  Absolutely not.  You will even be able to have intelligent conversations about pop culture and the upcoming Academy Awards without viewing this film, as I'm quite sure it's not nominated for a single thing.

A good substitute:  Really, the bottom line best substitute for any modern-day chick flick is Jane Austen, either read or viewed.  A&E's Pride and Prejudice or the more recent version starring Keira Knightly comes to mind for this film.  You have the same (and timeless) feeling of the heroine that she will never find her true love, and you also have the sister drama.  You have all of this without the Hollywood smut added to 27 Dresses.

Please read this and any other movie review that I might do, for what it is:  my opinion.  If you decide to see something that I recommend and end up hating it, please do not sue me for the price of your movie ticket, think bad things about me, or leave nasty comments on my blog.  Movies are so subjective.  Still, I believe most of my readers are Christian homeschoolers, so perhaps you really might find some value in what I write.....(which would be miraculous in and of itself!).

• Comments (15) • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link