Lex Luthor: Moron

If you've ever wondered what it would be like to see Lex Luthor:

• Wear a track suit instead of Armani suits
• Talk like some kind of VJ
• Look like he's obviously uncomfortable talking like a VJ, but do it anyway
• Not know the socially acceptable behavior for any given situation (i.e. whether or not he should remove his shirt in a parking lot in the middle of someone else's face-off)
• Make up stupid answers to direct questions and expect to be taken seriously
• Not be able to hang on to everything he wants just because he has money
• Get served
• Get told that he has a small dick
• Have hair

Please rent Kickin' It Old Skool, starring Jamie Kennedy and featuring Smallville's Michael Rosenbaum (a.k.a. Lex Luthor when he was young and handsome and not played by an old fart).

Photos courtesy of about.com. Apologies to Michael Rosenbaum, who is totally hot in real life, ESPECIALLY when he's bald!

Daniel Radcliffe as You've Never Seen Him Before

Insomniac Movie Review: Zoom (or ZOOM!)

Title: Zoom: Academy for Heroes
MPAA Rating: PG, for brief rude humor, language and mild action (Remember, G movies don't have action)

Cast: Tim Allen (you should know by now how I feel about him), Rip Torn (he's just there for a paycheck), Chevy Chase (ditto paycheck), Spencer Breslin (that overweight boy who's in too many movies, like the male Dakota Fanning, and in fact was in Cat in the Hat WITH Dakota Fanning), Courtney Cox (seriously, she should have known better)
Director: Peter Hewitt (director of Garfield: The Movie and Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey; what an ass)

The Plot: Do you care? Really? It's another movie in which Tim Allen has to prevent some crisis and learns to value family along the way. The only thing that's different this time is that there isn't so much Santa Clause make-up, he doesn't have to pretend to be some form of canine, and Breslin's not playing an elf. Oh, fine. Tim Allen has to train a bunch of kids to use their superhero powers and save our planet from "imminent destruction." You know, these movies would probably be much more watchable if the imminent destruction was ever something that is actually threatening our planet, like pollution or global war... Naaaah.

My opinion (as if you couldn't tell): The adults are all here for a paycheck, and to make sure their SAG union benefits don't get taken away. Well, Courtney Cox might also be here because she wanted to work on a project her child might actually be allowed to watch. The kids are all here so they can have some credits to their name besides "shampoo commercial." Really, three of the four kids have great hair.

I have to say, Tim Allen (playing Jack Shepard, "Captain Zoom") was really phoning it in this time. It seems even he has realized the idiocy of his career direction, and just doesn't care to make any further attempt at believable delivery of his lines. In fact, I wasn't 100% sure he wasn't reading from a cue card. Rip Torn was boring, but maybe he only seems that way because I recall his performance in Dodgeball, and long for my children to go to sleep so I can watch THAT movie instead. Chevy Chase needed to just go home. Only Courtney Cox seemed to care about making me believe her character (the comic book thing was kind of funny).

The thing that really bugged me, though, is when the youngest child, a very cute little girl, had a nightmare and went to sleep in Zoom's room with him. I know, this movie is supposed to be about becoming a family, but the thing is, it's not appropriate for a child to sleep in the bed of a man who is not her father. And I don't get why nobody SAID as much. I realize the film is trying to sell you on the he's-a-surrogate-dad concept, but I'm not buying that any more than I'm buying Chevy Chase as an idiot-genius or any of the other ridiculous crap that requires suspension of not only disbelief, but all common sense.

My five-year-old didn't like it, although it may have some appeal to a ten-year-old. Lie to your kids and tell them the video store is out of this movie right now. Save your money for something more believable, like Wallace and Grommit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit.

Scorsese gets his due

Yeah, that's right, my man Marty took home the little bald statue for his outstanding work as a director in The Departed. Anybody got a problem with that? No, I didn't think so. Actually, even the other directors who were nominated didn't seem to have a problem with it. That movie kicked ass, and Scorsese has been given the shaft for years.

Bonus points go to whomever had Best Director presented by Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg, and George Lucas. Obviously they did it because they knew Scorsese would win, but I also enjoyed the little moment in which George Lucas pointed out that he was the only guy up there who hadn't won an Oscar for Best Director. Yeah, that's because your movies suck now, George. Also, because you can't move on beyond the Star Wars saga. And you just keep selling differently tweaked versions of the same movies over and over and over, which you've been doing for at least twenty years.

I seem to remember that last year, the Oscars had a newish category, Best Comedy or Musical. What happened to that? Oh, wait, that was the Golden Globes. How exactly do comedies and musicals get lumped into the same category? Do we just laugh at musicals because they're unnatural? I nominate Godspell for a posthumous Golden Globe. You have to love Young Jack Bristow as the Jesus Clown.

In case any of you are trying to e-mail me, Yahoo Mail is giving me a problem today. So if you don't get a reply, it's not because I don't love you.

Random movie opinions

• Tim Allen needs to be a little more selective about the scripts he chooses. I realize that he's found a niche in "family friendly" movies. But dude, can't he pick scripts that are good?
• Patrick Stewart is sexy. Yeah, that's right, I said it! And every time he does voice work for animation, I get a little shiver.
• I do love the Harry Potter movies, but I have to say that the ending to Goblet of Fire was disappointing. Why? Because they try to end on a high note, with Harry all smiley and joking around with Ron and Hermione. No. Not the proper tone. It makes no sense because 1) Harry was all depressed about Cedric Diggory dying and full of self-blame, so don't tell me he recovered that fast, 2) how are we supposed to believe that he was all happy at the end of Year 4 and suddenly teen angsty at the beginning of Year 5?, and 3) there are not really any political overtones, which would properly set the stage for 5.
• Jennifer Garner's new movie, Catch and Release, is out this month. Kevin Smith is in it, prompting me to wonder how Kevin Smith is always involved in projects with Ben Affleck and/or his significant others. Then again, that's what friends are for. In any case, I'm glad Jennifer Garner is working again. She's got talent, that's for sure, and I hope to see her in many more projects that showcase her range.
• Speaking of Catch and Release, this movie is promoting itself with the phrase "From the writer of Erin Brockovich." It's a trend now to promote your movie by bragging that it was made or written by the same people who worked on other movies that did well. I find this disturbing. Seriously, am I supposed to be more impressed that a romantic comedy was penned by the screenwriter who adapted a true story (a drama at that)? I remember when Princess Diaries was first released, and the big promo was "from the director of Pretty Woman." Yeah, I know, it was the legendary Gary Marshall, and it was a G movie, but please explain to me how invoking a movie about a prostitute was supposed to make parents want to take their twelve-year-old daughters? I suppose it pays off if it gets more butts in the seats. But I sincerely doubt Date Movie is any funnier just because I know it's from two of the six writers of Scary Movie; for all I know, those are the two writers who wrote the penis-in-the-ear joke, and that just wasn't funny.

2006: The Year in Review

I was reading one of those Myspace surveys, and the question was asked: What was the most memorable thing that happened to you in 2006?

I realized that nothing actually happened to me that was all that memorable. Stuff happened to the people around me, and I got involved. Some of it was sad and/or drama-filled. But if I had to pick something that was about me and not a friend or relative, I'd say it was the day Bizarro Dad and I finally got our own room, after sharing a bedroom with the kids for sixteen solid months. Yeah! Sex whenever we want, without having to sneak into the living room and hoping no one else walks in!

Secondary memorable event: all the new kitchen appliances. No, I'm quite serious. This year my house opened it's doors to the following:
Breadmaker
6 Qt Crock Pot
Gas oven
Deep freezer

We celebrated the arrival of the oven by having Thanksgiving in May. And it was freakin' awesome.

*******
Sleepless Mama's Literary Awards for 2006

Most Ironic Book to be Banned
Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury, a book about book banning, which some New Caney hick tried to have banned from his teenage daughter's school curriculum. During Banned Book Week.

Best Page-Turner
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, by J.K. Rowling. Possibly ousting Prisoner of Azkaban as my favorite HP volume. I've read it two or three times this year, and I'll probably re-read the whole series before the next movie premieres in July. Seriously, what is it about HBP that drives me through the pages? Superior writing? Sharp wit? Mysteries to unravel? Quidditch? Maybe Rowling cast a spell on her books...

The next one gets two awards:
Best Compendium of Pop-Culture Knowledge
and
Most Uses of the Word "Shadenfreude" in a Book Not Written In or About the German Language
Television Without Pity: 752 Things We Love to Hate (and Hate to Love) about TV, by Tara Ariano and Sarah D. Bunting. I use the word "compendium" loosely, since this book is not exactly brief. But damn, is it hilarious. It's arranged like an encyclopedia of wackiness, really. There are entries on everything. Some samples, just to give you an idea: Cosby Sweater (with illustration); Friends, Failed Clones of; Chia Pet; Smurfs, The; Wardrobe, Endlessness of; Moriarty, Michael, Bonkers-osity of; "As Seen on TV" Products; Shatner, William, Legendarily Awesome Saturday Night Live Appearance of; and "In the Butt, Bob." How can you be a TV-watcher and not want to read this book?

Most Awesome Graphic Novel (a.k.a. "Comic")
V for Vendetta, by Alan Moore and David Lloyd, DC Comics. For shocking imagery, for horrifying social commentary, for sheer kick-assery. Read it. Love it.

********
2006 Sleepless Mama Movie Awards

Best Animated Feature
Cars. Hands down. I want a bigger TV so I can try to recreate the experience of seeing this in a theater. A 25" television just doesn't do it justice.

Most Gratuitous Footage of Nerds in Action
Wordplay. It makes me feel better about my lifelong nerdiness, and even drives me to be a little nerdier than I've been in recent years.

Biggest Load of Crap
Pretty much anything with Tim Allen in it. Shaggy Dog, Santa Clause 3, you name it, it sucks.

Most Overrated, Overhyped Piece of Drivel That Made Ridiculous Amounts of Money at the Box Office but Was Actually a Suck-Fest
It's a tie between DaVinci Code and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. What? I'd have been better off waiting for them to come to DVD. Special Features tend to distract you from holes and contrivances in the plot.

The children are laughing and asking Mommy to play, so I'll conclude my rant for the year. Please have a safe holiday celebration and a prosperous New Year. Thanks for reading.

Discriminating Santa

My daughter's love watching that old stop-motion movie Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. I have to admit, it is pretty cute, and I'm glad they are still able to be impressed by something that didn't cost $80,000,000 to animate. That being said, the more I watch this movie, the more something about strikes me as wrong.

Will someone please tell me what the hell is Santa's problem with "different?" The first time he sees Rudolph's red nose, he issues a warning. The second time he sees it (when Rudolph is a yearling with a better flight take-off than any of the other young bucks), Santa immediately turns to Rudolph's father, Donner, and says "You should be ashamed of yourself." He doesn't stop the other bucks from making fun of Rudolph, and he allows the Flight coach to ban Rudolph from any further training (Reindeer Games).

Furthermore, you are not going to make me believe that Santa doesn't know about the Misfit Toys. Surely some of them came from his own workshop. But does Santa care? Does it matter to him that there are toys in need of a home but can't find one because they're odd?

And really, why is he so completely unconcerned with Kirby, the elf who wants to be a dentist? His foreman is concerned only with making toys, which makes sense in a toy factory, but he goes from trying to force conformity to simply writing Kirby off as a freak. And Santa? Does not give a flying rat's tail.

I think we need to analyze just what type of guy this Santa was before Rudolph and Kirby ran away and forced him into a guilt-driven epiphany. Was he the type of Santa who didn't give toys to kids with disabilities or unattractive birthmarks? Did he not like the nerdy children? Did he give them fewer toys? I understand the whole Naughty and Nice division; that makes sense. But clearly he treated his reindeer, toys, and elves better or worse in accordance with their appearance and/or conformity. Why are we expected to believe that he treated children any better before Rudolph taught him the lesson of tolerance?

Face it, people, the Santa in this film is a prejudiced bunghole! DOWN WITH ANIMATED JERKY CLAUS! LONG LIVE THE REAL SANTA, WHO HAS COMPASSION FOR ALL!

Maybe some Scientologists should embrace karma

Seriously, people. Have you heard about this? Paramount has just up and decided not to renew their contract with Tom Cruise, or rather his production company Cruise/Wagner (C/W), on the grounds that Tom's personal conduct is...unbecoming? Unacceptable. Something like that. Actually, the man who makes such decisions (Sumner Redstone of Viacom) said Tom "effectuates creative suicide and costs the company revenue," and thus should not be "on the lot."

Currently the celebrity gossip columns are making much of Cruise's unfavorable ratings with the public (what, he's the president now, that he gets his own approval rating?), and everyone seems to be blaming his couch-jumping, anti-depressant-hating, Scientology-spewing conduct for the relative failure of Mission Impossible 3 ($398 million worldwide, when they were all expecting half a billion dollars), which in turn is viewed, by the columnists, as the reason for Paramount's latest decision. But a simple search pulls up an article in Variety, dated July 10 of this year, which reveals this interesting factoid:

Although the company has provided Par[amount] with some heavy hitters at the box office -- "War of the Worlds" and May's "Mission: Impossible III" -- it has also delivered a string of recent disappointments like "Suspect Zero," "Elizabethtown" and "Ask the Dust."

The article goes on to say that "Cruise's deals are notoriously rich and hard to make," and points out that chairman Brad Grey's first priority, when he took over Paramount in 2005, was to reduce the budget for MI3.

So you see, folks, it's not just that Tom Cruise is a stark raving wacko. It's that he's a wacko who produces crappy movies that don't sell at all and expensive movies that don't quite sell enough to make up the difference.

Although, really, I have to admit the wacko factor is what kept me from going out to watch MI3.

Chicken or Egg?

Which is better to do first: read the book, or watch the movie?

This is the downright dumbest excuse for a fundamental question I've ever had, but here it is. I want to know what you think is better.

Everyone knows by now that if you read the book first, you'll spend the majority of the movie thinking to yourself (or shouting out loud, if you're the type), "Dude, that's not what's supposed to happen!" or "She's supposed to go in the building FIRST!" or "What happened to all the other characters?" or "This doesn't even resemble the central plot of the book. It's like they took all the same characters and wrote a new story for them."

You find yourself unable to enjoy the film for itself, because in your mind it should be the visual companion to the book you know and love, when in fact almost no movie can accomplish such a feat without being 11 hours long. Producers, screenwriters, editors, etc. simply have to change a story, to chop it up and strip it down to bare essentials simply for time constraints. "But, but, no, don't you think maybe..." No. Maybe with the DVD they can recut it and add in all that extra footage (a la Lord of the Rings and Stargate) and make it more like the book, but the theatrical release has to be shortened. It's not like we have intermission these days. People gotta pee. Shorten the story so I can go pee!

This does not mean, however, that I approve of some screenwriters' habit of taking the main characters and just giving them completely new plots. Most of the time I get all pissy and feel like demanding a refund. If I wanted to see Princess Mia Fights the Custom of Marriage while Receiving Gentle Advice from Julie Andrews, I'd write a piece of crappy Princess Diaries fanfiction. I like my Princess Mia the Smartalecky Teenage New Yorker with the Grandmother from Hell, just the way Meg Cabot wrote it.

Do you see what I mean? These movies are good in and of themselves, but I can't just sit and watch these movies and enjoy them for what they are now that I've read the books. In my mind, Mia's Grandmother should be a princess, not a queen, and she should have eyeliner tattooed to her lids, a balding toy poodle, and a prediliction for Sidecars (1/3 lemon juice, 1/3 Cointreau, 1/3 brandy shaken well with ice, strained before serving). Fitzwilliam Darcy should not have that stupid look on his face as though someone were trying to teach him Einstein's theory of relativity 140 years too early. Harry Freaking Potter should have...oh, I won't go there.

On the other hand...

Yesterday I finished reading Practical Magic. Do you recall that film, with Nicole Kidman and Sandra Bullock? Can you picture Gillian (Kidman) with her long red hair? Can you see the children casting spells? Remember the aunts casting an attraction spell on Sally (Bullock)? Can you picture that hot cop (played by Aidan Quinn) with the multi-colored eyes? That's nice, but don't expect to find them in the book in that way.

Gillian has short blond hair and falls in love with a biology teacher. The children are surly teenagers who don't even know their aunts are witches, and they certainly don't cast their own spells. The hot cop has brown eyes, and he did not come as the result of that cute little spell Sally cast when she was a kid (the spell never happened).

This is not a big deal, really. It's clear the screenwriter took the story and did some major changes, but that's not what bothers me most. No, the problem is that when I read, I can only picture Bullock, Kidman, and Quinn in those roles. And the aunts? Yeah, I can only see Stockard Channing and Dianne Weist. My imagination has been limited, because I saw the movie first. I should be sitting there picturing a blonde in her mid thirties, but all I can come up with is Nicole in her twenties. I should be making up my own ideas about the clothes, scenery, houses, minor characters, etc. But I'm stuck in the movie. I'm stuck with those actors, those set directors, costumers, etc. And if there's one thing I can't stand, it's having someone else limit my imagination for me.

So, back to my question. What's better? Book first, or movie first?

Insomniac Movie Review: Howl's Moving Castle

Howl's Moving Castle

Directed by Hayao Miyazaki

An amazing film, beautiful and thought provoking. Although it is certainly adapted by the novel (of same name) by Diana Wynne Johnson, the film departs from the source material to examine the harsh effects of war on the central characters and the world they live in.

The central plot revolves around a girl, Sophie, who falls under a witch's curse to become a 90-year-old woman. I could go on and on about how she comes to interact with the Wizard Howl and have a positive effect on the people around her as she struggles to overcome her own curse, but I won't. It's much more fun to watch it unfold than to be told about it. One thing about Miyazaki, he loves to tell a good story. It is not by accident that John Lasseter and Brad Bird (Pixar geniuses of storycrafting) have raved about Miyazaki in general and this film in particular. Well, okay, it's more than coincidence; the English dubbing was directed by Pete Docter (also of the Pixar genius clan). But directing the English voices is not nearly the same as directing the movie itself, and Miyazaki does a superior job.

The warfare in this story is not glorified, like some kind of Richard Donner movie or G.I. Joe cartoon. It is made very clear that war and violence disrupt the peace and beauty of everyday life, and it may scare younger children. The war storyline can easily be construed as a judgement of the current wars in the Middle East, but it holds true for any war that is fought close to someone's home. Remember the lesson of Tolkein, and look for applicability to many aspects of our lives, not allegory to one particular situation.

The animation is, quite simply, superb. Perhaps the people's faces are typical of anime, but the scenery is outstanding and the transformations astounded me. I wish I had a Hi-Def TV just for this movie.

Be aware, parents, that there is very slight, brief nudity. The central character is even trying to look away, so it's not like some gratuitous derriere footage. Honestly, if you think a quick side view of a cartoon butt is an issue, then you really need to see a therapist. Your kids look at their own butts in the full length mirror, people, whether you know it or not. Get over it.

If I must address a perceived flaw, it is that the ending seems too neat. However, it should be noted that the book itself has an absurdly neat ending, in which myriad storylines are all wrapped up in so concise a manner that I found myself checking to make sure I hadn't accidentally skipped some pages. So get over it, critics.

Rent this movie. You'll love it.

There was an article in yesterday's paper about Clerks II, but a sizable portion seemed to be about Kevin Smith's feelings about Jersey Girl. Tremendous flop at the box office and all that. According to the interviewer, Smith brought it up frequently, but still maintained that it's not a sore spot but does hurt. Uh, Kevin, sorry man, but that's the definition of a sore spot.

The thing is, I liked Jersey Girl. It's in my Netflix Queue. My mother loved it. It was thoughtful and tender, funny, and had attractive people in it. All the things you want from a PG-13 non-action movie. But because of the Bennifer aspect, and the whole Gigli thing, people just didn't want to go watch this movie. It's a shame, really, because Jennifer Lopez is barely even IN the movie. She dies in, like, the first five or ten minutes. Honestly, if that's not enough of a reason to watch, I don't know what is.

(Don't flame me. We watch people die in movies all the time. Might as well work out our feelings about an actor while we're doing so. Besides, I am well aware that it was a sad scene and that Lopez played it well.)

Kevin, let it go. I know it hurts because you spent two years on that movie and nobody seemed to appreciate it. But really, it was good. And you didn't have to worry about Joel Siegel trying to attract attention to himself during the screening. ;)

Insomniac Movie Rundown

Last weekend the husband and I did a double feature: DaVinci Code, followed by Lake House. I'll keep it short, since I want to talk about other movies, too.

DaVinci Code: If it's still at the theater in your area, and you still haven't seen it but are thinking about it, allow me to save you some money by telling you to wait until it's available on DVD. Don't get me wrong, it's not horribly bad. It's just...you don't gain anything by seeing it on a large screen versus a smaller screen. The acting is not superior, even though it IS Tom Hanks. And the car chase scene? Ugh. The camera work in that scene is simply terrible! Whoever directed that (and I'm guessing it was second unit, as most action scenes are) seemed to believe that shots of a tiny car driving backwards and crazy in the narrow streets of Paris is not enough to keep us on the edge of our seats. No, you need to shake up the camera to shake up the audience, or at least that's what these people think. Personally, I was glad I didn't have epilepsy like my best friend, because I surely would have had a seizure from the strobe-like effect of this scene.

Lake House: You know, I've defended this movie (clearly, critics hate it) and encouraged people to give it a chance. But the fact is, I was happy with it because I only wanted two things from it: to see a romance that might make me cry, and to ogle Keanu Reeves. If you want some sort of cultural experience from your films, then you need to skip this and head to the Anjelika. If you want to see nude/shirtless people, go see X-Men 3. If you're a girl, and you want to cry, or look at Keanu in all his hot-40-year-old-in-a-turtleneck glory, come right here. Truthfully, you should not expect more than that. There are some gaping plotholes, and while you might be able to overlook them for the hour and half while you watch, you won't be able to get over them once you get to the car and start thinking about it. I won't go into it, lest I spoil the movie for you. I will say, ladies, leave the men at home, because they will not enjoy it as much as you, and will feel as though they've paid $17 for idiocy. Go with some girlfriends so that you can weep freely.

Doogal: Available on DVD. It's premise, that a band of animals must travel the world in search of magic diamonds in order to imprison an evil ice wizard, is more or less a cartoon version of Lord of the Rings. In fact, there are numerous references to Lord of the Rings, as well as The Matrix, Bend it Like Beckham, and heaven knows what else. You know how Shrek and Shrek 2 do a few little bits to parody whatever new movies have come out recently? Doogal does the same thing, only it never ends, and the material doesn't have to be "recent" or even "from this decade." There's a Bone Thugs N Harmony joke in there that I found especially amusing, because I recall a time when that was all my brother listened to for a solid year. The memory of his stereo blasting all hours of the day and night still sends annoying signals to the rest of my body. This movie did scare my kids at first, but when they sat in my lap to watch it, there was no problem. We rented it, but most likely will not buy it. Note to the casting director: casting Jon Stewart of The Daily Show as the villain was genius. Casting Whoopi Goldberg as the cow was not. Y'all really need to pick a voice that fits the character, not the voice that everyone will recognize whether it serves the character or not. You're basically paying bookoos of money for someone to mess up your movie for you.

Insomniac Movie Review: Cars

Title: Cars
Starring: Luke Wilson, Paul Freakin' Newman!, Bonnie Hunt (her third Pixar movie), Richard Petty (as a car painted Petty Blue, no less), Cheech Marin, and Larry the Cable Guy (this is the first time I've ever heard his voice and not wanted to rip my own ears off)
MPAA Rating: G

Plot Summary: Your standard jerk-who-looks-down-on-everyone-finds-himself-a-fish-out-of-water-and-learns-the-true-meaning-of-friendship story, with a hint of finding-a-hidden-treasure-and-learning-its-value and a dash of helping-old-things-become-new-again. Oh, and a little pinch of romance, but not enough to make the kids groan.

Okay, so it's a kids movie, but one the parents can enjoy without getting bored (coughCuriousGeorgecough). A Pixar film, no less. Do you really need more of a reason to schlep the kiddies out to the box office? You do? Okay, I'll lay it out for you.

1. The story is good. It's not The Incredibles, I'll grant you, but Pixar has always been in service of the story. Yes, it's predictable, but it's still good, it still entertains, and it still rings true. And really, it's only predictable to adults because we're old fogeys who've seen too many movies. To a child, it's all new.
2. The jokes work for everyone. My husband has been going on and on about them. Non-stop. Since Tuesday. No kidding.
3. Paul Newman! Seriously! You can't love movies and not see something with Paul Newman in it. It's against the law in 49 states and the District of Columbia.
4. The animation is simply amazing. I'm not kidding. From the very beginning of the film, Pixar animators do things that trick the eyes. These people have gotten so good, I almost forgot I was looking at CG animation in some places. If for no other reason than to marvel at man's accomplishment in technology and artistry, you should see this movie. And I can tell you right now, watching the DVD on my 25" TV screen will not do justice the the sights in this movie. To be fully appreciated, this movie simply MUST be seen on a cinema screen. Or, possibly, on my sis-in-law's digital projector screen that takes up her whole living room wall.
5. Larry the Cable Guy, for once in his life, makes things better and funnier with his presence. I know, I couldn't believe it either! But it's true! He really works in this movie. Granted it's not such a stretch for Larry to play a character who is, basically, a total goober. But he's not raunchy or disgusting here, which instantly makes him 20 times more likeable.
6. Tractor tipping. Weirdest thing ever, but so funny.
7. You know how when you get caught up in watching a NASCAR race, and you start getting bored and secretly hope for a car crash to break the monotony, but then you feel all bad about wishing that an innocent person would have a crash? You can totally wish for an accident in this movie and not feel guilty, because it's a cartoon.
8. This movie will fill you with nostalgia. I sat there wishing I could go back to these old places, these small towns. I was ready to plan out a road trip to San Antonio by way of US90, just to see what kind of places I would spot along the way.
9. Cars already have personality; you see a minivan, you assign an impression of the person who drives it, like "Soccer mom." This movie is just the natural progression of an accepted idea.
10. The cartoon short "One Man Band" is hilarious. Make sure you get to the theater early!
11. The ending credits cracked us all up. Watch them! Don't miss out!
12. Did I mention Paul Newman?

Take your kids to see this movie. You'll get no peace in the house until you do, and you know it. Also, Pixar deserves the money. They put on a good show.

Insomniac Movie Review: X-Men 3: Last Stand

Title: X3: The Last Stand
MPAA Rating: PG-13

Plot Summary: A pharmaceutical company generates a "cure" for mutation. Some mutants embrace it, others protest it, and Magneto exploits the situation by forming an army, intent on destroying the source of the cure. Jean Grey, who "died" in the previous movie, is found alive, but unable to contain her power. The X-Men find themselves defending humans (not to mention the source of the very cure they despise) against Magneto's mutant militia. Ethical questions arise, but they are too numerous to detail.

Should your kids watch it? I do not recommend letting the little ones see this movie. Then you'd have to explain why that woman has her legs around that guy, and you don't want to go there with your six-year-old. I'd say 12 and up.

My opinion about this movie: Three words. IT. KICKS. ASS!

What, you want more yakking? Okay. This movie has the character relationships you like (although I think there could have been more exploration to this than was on the film). This movie has the fighting you action buffs want. This movie has some awesome special effects, and they don't even look fake (are you taking notes, George Lucas?) This movie has new, awesome mutations that freaked me right out. It has more famous mutants from Marvel Comics. Yeah, that's right, Juggernaut is there, along with ArchAngel, Colossus, Shadowcat (called Kitty here), and heaven knows who else. Forgive me, comic lovers, but it has been a good 12-15 years since I last read an X-Men comic, so I don't know the name of that dude who multiplies himself, and I can't remember it from watching the movie only once.

One more thing. When you see this movie, be sure to STAY to the END OF THE CREDITS. You will not be disappointed.

Insomniac Movie Review: Over the Hedge

Over the Hedge
Starring: Bruce Willis (who I love because he's not afraid to be silly), Gary Shandling (in his least annoying role ever), Steve Carell (I normally can't stand him, but here he's great), William Shatner, Avril Lavigne, Wanda Sykes, Allison Janney (who knew she could play so evil?), many others
MPAA Rating: PG, for rude humor and mild comic action. Wait, what is "mild comic action" supposed to mean? Is that supposed to mean the part where the skunk does her skunk thing? Is slapstick comedy a PG thing now?

The Plot: As if you hadn't figured it out from all 497 million commercial spots. A group of forest animals wake up from hibernation to find that most of their forest has been cleared and turned into a suburb. A raccoon named RJ (Bruce Willis) shows up and teaches the others how to steal food from the humans. He has an ulterior motive. The Homeowners Association President has motives of her own. Bonus: this movie is based on a comic strip by the same name. It was written by a man who lived in Houston (!) and saw how the wildlife had to try and live right in the middle of civilization. Double bonus: the day after I saw this movie, I saw a dead racoon in the road near a shopping center, not fifty yards away from the nearest suburb.

What annoyed me: The previews. No, seriously. I am so sick of seeing that stupid preview with the animated penguin, voiced by Robin Williams, singing "I Did It My Way" in Spanish. It looks stupid, and I will not see it. Besides which, it scares my children. Both of them. Every time. Crying. Stop showing it. I also refuse to see Santa Clause 3, because Tim Allen does not need encouragement to keep making dumbass movies. Also, sequels to GOOD movies don't usually do as well as the original, so I don't see why anyone thinks it's a good idea to make a sequel to a SUCKY one. (Do not send hate mail. Santa Clause 1 was not bad, but part 2 was a piece of crap, and you know it.)

Should you see Over the Hedge? Yes. Yes you should. Because it was written by a Houstonian. Also, because it's funny, and the kids in the audience were cracking up. The little ones liked it. The big ones liked it. My husband liked it. My four-year-old, I'll admit, was scared during one part of the movie. But not scared enough to scream. And yes, during part of the movie she started climbing over her seat, but only because her little sister did it first, and because she's too little to understand and appreciate the parts of a movie in which a character has a life-changing revelation (a.k.a. the slow part with all the talking). But after the movie was over, she kept talking about what she'd seen, and continued to do so through the next day. That's more than I can say about the last movie we took her to.

And yes, there were a lot of fart jokes. There's a skunk, people. Get over it. For a couple of hours, pretend you're still in fourth grade and fine that stuff funny. Once you leave, you may resume your hoity toity I-cahn't-aBIDE-bahthroom-hyumour attitude.

Spoilers: The spooky part that scared my daughter was the bear. It was chasing down the animals and attacking an exterminator truck and roaring and trying to eat things that were still alive. Yeah, my daughter hid her little face in the armrest. But afterward, she was fine. She still sleeps with her bear, and does not seem to have had any nightmares. The savage bear still didn't scare her as much as that stupid singing penguin from the preview.

My favorite parts were the cracks about the Homeowner's Association. Honestly, I think the Homeowner's Assoc. may very well be the prime indicator of the downfall of civil liberty. If you own a property that belongs to an HA, they can actually dictate who you sell your house to, what flowers you can plant, what color you can paint your house, whether or not you can have a flag pole on your property, whether or not you can park in your own driveway, all that jazz. I tell you, it's just WRONG. Homeowner's Associations should be deemed unconstitutional, and all the HA presidents should be made to suffer. Which is why I love this movie. Heh heh heh...

So, go see this movie. If you prefer to wait for DVDs, that might not be such a bad idea. I missed some of the lines because the kids in the theater were laughing too hard. I must say, the explosions won't be quite the same without the large screen.

Note to Humble, TX, Deerbrook AMC 24: when you premiere a children's movie, have the courtesy to show it on one of your larger screens, just like you do the adult and teen movies. I'm tired of seeing the animated movies back in screens 8 and 9. Some of the picture is cut off, and the surround sound speakers are starting to fail. Also: fire your projectionist. He clearly can't align the picture to the screen without an extra pair of hands.

Stuff and Nonsense Cafe, 5-10-06

Welcome to the Stuff and Nonsense Cafe! We do hope you enjoy our myriad selection of meals actually being served by our content mistress, Sleepless Mama, in her own home. Please have a seat, enjoy your meal, and read on as Sleepless Mama rambles about anything that happens to cross her mind.

Today's lunch menu:
Potato Soup
PB&J
Leftover Potato and Egg Tacos from Breakfast
Ice Cream Sandwiches
Cheetos
Carrots

************
In entertainment news, Mission Impossible III is or is not doing so well, depending on how you spin the numbers. According to The Houston Chronicle, MI3 made $48 million its opening weekend, more than the rest of the weekend's top ten films put together, and the second largest opening weekend this year so far. However, the Chronicle also admits that the expectation was a $60+ million dollar opening. It also says that MI3 cost $150 million to make and millions more to promote. Finally, the first two Mission Impossible Films had much better opening weekends when you figure in the cost of inflation. MI1 made $45.4 million (the equivalent of $67 million today), and MI2 $57.8 million (the equivalent of $70 million today).

Clearly, two problems are at work here. 1) Not enough people want to see Tom Cruise's movie now that he's gone completely overboard. I already thought he was a buttnugget back when he and Nicole split up, but in the past year he's upgraded to full-on assclown publicity whore. People are sick of him already. 2) The box office slump is almost entirely due to the rising cost of movie tickets. No, seriously. That MI2 figure I presented you with? Yeah, MI2 was released only six years ago. Ticket prices have gone up THAT MUCH. It doesn't matter whether the movies up on that screen are awesome examples of their respective genres or flaming turd piles, if ticket prices are too high then more people are going to say "screw that, I'll just wait until it's on DVD and rent it at Blockbuster for $4."

************
The following was taken from this week's column of News of the Weird:

The Continuing Crisis
Eleven women in the area around the nation's capital have bonded, according to a February Washington Post story, around a tall, athletic man of German heritage (with a master's degree and who tans easily), whom none has ever met. The man, known as donor 401, is the one whose sperm each of the women chose to be inseminated with, selected from a biographical catalog of the Fairfax Cryobank. That the women's 12 offspring have a common father has provided powerful motivation for them to learn about each other, as a way of learning about 401 (who has now retired as a donor, though there is still a waiting list for his stored sperm.) [Washington Post, 2-27-06]

This goes to illustrate the point I've been trying to make for years, which is that there is an unregarded danger in having children by anonymous sperm donation: the potential for future children to not know they are biological siblings, and form relationships with each other that would be considered incestuous. Just think, what if these 12 women had not rallied around each other and decided to meet, play getting-to-know-you, and wonder which of their kids would get the tanning gene? For all we know, some of the sons could have grown up, met one of the daughters, and thought "Hey, she's cute, and she tans so easily. Maybe we should hook up." Studies show that people are attracted to individuals who have facial features similar to their own. What's to stop these anonymous sibs from getting jiggy with each other by mistake?

Every time I brought this up in school, or with a health care professional, I got the brush off. "Oh, that's not a problem. More than likely they'll be separated geographically and will never meet." Excuse me, but how does anyone know this? Are the sperm donations of a single man separated and sent to different parts of the country? (If the article quoted above is indicitave of standard procedure, then the answer is no.) Does the fertility clinic ensure that all women who accept sperm from the same donor live in different parts of town? If one of those women move in close proximity to another, do they get little fliers in the mail saying, "By the way, one of the children in this community was fathered by the same donor as your child. For reasons of privacy we cannot actually tell you who that child is, so to be on the safe side, don't let your kids make out with anyone who bears a slight resemblance to themselves." WHY don't people make more of a big deal about this? Here this man with the nice tan has 12 children on the way in DC, and a WAITING LIST to have more (also in DC, I'll bet), and nobody wonders what will happen when a man's seed has been spread anonymously throughout a community. People, WAKE UP! Do we really want the next generation to be the children of unknown inbreeding?!

************
Product Review: LCD Cleaning Wipes by MG Chemicals
According to the label, it safely cleans LCD screens, laptop screens, and plasma screens, is anti-static, non-streaking, and germicidal, and is available in a plastic canister of 90 wipes. Cost: $7.99 USD. Consumer opinion: This stuff ROCKS on our LCD computer monitor! Very effective at removing grubby fingerprints provided by the children. Be aware that it contains isopropanol; if it gets in your eyes or on your skin you should rinse well with water. Also, remember to close the container after each use to avoid wipe dry-out.

***********
Spanish language version of the American national anthem: good, bad, neither?
Personally, my national anthem will only mean something to ME when I hear it in English. I wish the translation into Spanish had been a direct translation, because then there would have been less fuss about it. Nonetheless, I recognize that not everything has a direct translation, and that someone was simply trying to do a nice thing by providing a way for new immigrants to understand the meaning behind the words to our anthem.

My husband, the Marine, is all pissy about this new version. "It will never mean the same thing! It's a symbol, you can't mess with it! How long before it's being sung at baseball games! Why can't people just learn it in English?!" (I wonder what his grandparents, who spoke only limited English, would have to say about his point of view.) His brother J, also a Marine, doesn't have a problem with the Spanish version, and made the same points I did. I pointed out to my husband that since he swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, he can't demand that this Spanish song be taken off the air or never be sung in a public venue, since it is protected by the First Amendment. He looked at me, blinking his eyes, and asked what on earth the First Amendment had to do with it. I blinked right back. "Free speech, honey?"

I am completely supportive of our servicemen. I know they don't start wars, politicians do; military members just go where Big Daddy sends them. But I think perhaps there needs to be some fine-tuning of the education going on in basic training. Because if thousands of men and women are going going to fight, be wounded, and/or die to uphold our Constitution, then damnit, they need to know what it says! Is that too much to ask?

Insomniac Movie Review: The Wild

Title: The Wild
MPAA Rating: G

Did my kids like it?: Yes, they did. Even the little one got down off my lap and stuck her head in between the two seats in front of her so that she could see the movie clearly, without obstruction. True, the oldest has not been inundating me with movie quotes, but she didn't do that with the last family movie we went to see, either. And there was definite laughter throughout the movie, from my kids and from all the other kids in the theater.

Did I like it?: Yeah. It wasn't a bad movie. It wasn't fabulous, but then, I don't go to a children's movie looking for heavy drama. I did get a few laughs out of it.

The Plot: Lion and his cub live in zoo. Cub is accidentally taken away and shipped off to the wild (Africa). Lion and his friends hijack a boat and go rescue him. No, really. And (you'll never believe this) the whole thing is NOT a rip-off of Madagascar. It's a rip-off of Lion King.

Okay, seriously. According to the people arguing in the IMDb message boards, The Wild has began production (or pre-production, or whatever) ten years ago, long before Madagascar was a twinkle in Dreamworks's eye. I must say, I have my doubts about that, because if it really began that long ago, Pixar might have done The Wild themselves, since it was before their Great Giving of the Finger to Disney. But then again, Pixar may have been offered this story and refused it, since they don't like doing blatant rip-offs.

To explain: the story comes off as Madagascar plus Lion King with a dash of Finding Nemo. But really, part of the reason it comes off Finding Nemo is because the Tale of Someone Getting Lost and the Rest of his Friends/Family Going to Find Him has been told over and over again for, literally, hundreds of years, maybe even thousands. They say there are only, like, eight different stories in the world, and every other tale is just a different version of one or more of those stories. After seeing so many movies, I am beginning to suspect this is true.

As far as the Madagascar stuff goes, well, it wouldn't be the first time Dreamworks ripped off a Disney idea, rushed to make their own version, and then released their's into theaters before Disney. Hello, Antz vs. A Bug's Life, anyone? Dreamworks was a BIG TIME IDEA SWIPER. Apparently, they still are.

But with this movie, I felt the story guys just blatantly ripped off Lion King. With the cub who can't roar, and the animals that want to behave in a way that is contrary to the laws of nature, and the dancing at the base of an active volcano (remember the hyenas at the elephant graveyard, and how the canyon kept changing shapes and spewing steam?). There's even a scene in which one creature stomps his hoof on the Lion's paw as he's dangling at the egde of a cliff. Do you see what I mean, here?

As we left the theater, my husband and I were pondering why Disney would plagiarize it's own movie. It doesn't make any sense! I can see lack of imagination, as far as the general storyline, but some of those scenes were complete and total copies. In fact, it seemed as if the whole copycat theme was...deliberate? That this movie Is, in fact, a (dare I say it?) parody.

Yes! Yes, that's what it is, it makes PERFECT sense! Because not only are the wildebeasts dancing around a volcano, they are TALKING about dancing around a volcano, and in fact harsh on each other about the CHOREOGRAPHY! Patrick Warburton's character actually goes so far as to tell his leader/choreographer that the style of dance is "so eighties."

Ha! Success! It's not a lack of imagination! It's satire! Only funnier! Or, if not that, then it's laziness combined with parody! I GET IT!

ahem

So, yeah, go see this with your kids, so that they can laugh at the fart jokes and you can laugh at the parody aspects of it. Or, wait until it comes out on video (although, I must tell you, the city landscape scenes will lose their grandeur when viewed on a small screen).

Also: there's a song in this movie, I think it's played by U2 but I'm not sure. It's in the "animals ride around the city in awe of all the bright lights and tall buildings" scene. I LOVE that song, but I don't know the title or the artist. Anyone care to help?

Insomniac Movie Review: V for Vendetta

Title: V for Vendetta
MPAA Rating: R for violence, language, and some gross stuff (okay, the grossness probably wasn't the R-rated part, but just know that it's there)

Okay, the grossness: I won't get into what exactly it was. But I will tell you I'm the most squeamish person alive, so if it didn't bug me, you'll probably be fine.

I don't think I've ever in my life wanted to buy a comic book because of the movie it was based on. And there have certainly been a ridiculous number of such movies in my lifetime, going all the way back to Superman, or the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. But after watching this film last night, I can hardly wait to truck on over to Barnes and Noble, where I KNOW they have the whole comic series bound into one volumn. This movie was, for lack of a better word, AWESOME!

Highly political? Check. Violent, but not randomly so? Check. Cute chick, dashing hero, ugly villain? Check, check, and check.

When I say "dashing," don't misunderstand me. The hero is not attractive because of his face, although I will admit that after a while the mask started to look good. I mean his manner, his speech, his charisma, everything about him that was so...well, hot. And tragic. And funny. Like I said, hot.

But guys, don't worry, there's something there for you. Did I mention the violence? Oh, and the cute girl? She really is quite lovely, even after she gets her head shaved. (Oh, don't go ape because I gave something away. The trailers gave it away months ago.)

My husband told me he heard of controversy about the wisdom of releasing this movie at this time. After all, it is essentially a pro-terrorist film, if you want to take that view of things. But the thing is, now is the PERFECT time to release this film. It's about a man with an idea, and history has proven that it is often the work of one man that brings about great social change. And it's about freeing the people from an oppressive government. Is that not why America has fought so many wars?

Well, no, maybe not. You could argue that all wars are fought for money. My fifth-grade teacher certainly did argue that. And in that respect, this fictional war is no different. The men doing the oppression are filthy stinking rich, got that way by unscrupulous means that harmed many, and intend to keep all their riches (but more importantly, their power) by continuing their cycle of abuse, lies, and murder.

Hey, do you know of any countries that tell lies, abuse their people, or commit murder? I do.

Do you know of any countries that are slowly taking away the rights of their people, bit by bit? I do. In fact, I think maybe I live there.

Fortunately, I still have the right to object. I still have the right to say, "You know what, what you are doing is the exact opposite of what you're supposed to be defending. That shit ain't right."

I still have the right to say, "You know what, this war that you started is no longer a war we need to be in the middle of. Maybe you started out doing the right thing, but now you're only making things worse. Bring our boys home."

I still have the right to say, "You are polluting our planet. Cut it out, assclown, and act like the world will still matter once you're long dead."

I still have the right to say stuff like that. I still have the right to read any Bible I choose, whether it be the Torah, the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, the Koran, the Kabbalah, the Bhagavad-Gita, or the Tibetan Book of the Dead. I have the right to listen to any music I like, look at any art I like, see any movie, watch any show. And I do not surrender this right. Nor do I choose to limit the rights of others, should their opinions differ from mine. (This addendum: I do not condone anything that physically or psychologically violates other people. That's just more oppression for entertainment value.)

And this movie is one I chose to see. And I loved it.

Insomniac Movie Review: Ice Age 2

Title: Ice Age 2: The Meltdown
MPAA Rating: PG, for some mild language and innuendo (in other words, somebody says "Da-yum!")

So we took my two daughters, ages four and not-quite-two, to see this Monday night. The baby? Didn't care about it. She was not riveted. She was not amazingly silent for previously unheard of lengths of time. She did get excited when the film began to roll, but after a while she got antsy and fussy and had to be walked around. So to those of you parents who have a child this age: take the child to the theater well before bedtime, or you will have an upleasant experience.

Gina, on the other hand, was very interested. She was able to discern what was going on some of the time, and tell us about it. Trouble is, she wanted to tell us while the movie was still playing, so we had to shush her. Not a big deal, but then when the audience started laughing at something, she turned around and started shushing all of them. "You need to be quiet, peoples."

There were enough jokes in there to tickle the adults. Bizarro Dad has been repeating them ever since. So you won't be bored, Mom and Dad. Unless you're already boring, in which case, liven up a little!

This movie is worth taking your kids to. Now, if you don't want to be spoiled or read about the controversy that has started around this movie, read no further.

*
*
*
Still with me? Great!

There have been some who object to the death of an animal being shown on screen in this movie. Actually, that's probably not quite how they phrased it, which is good, because that's not quite what happened on the screen, either.

An animal did in fact die. It was eaten. It was not, however, shown being eaten. Here is the scene: Surface of the water is on screen. Turtle is in the water. Turtle is suddenly dragged down, but camera stays with surface of water. A few seconds pass. Turtle shell comes back up. There is no turtle in the turtle shell. There is no blood. There are no bones (unless you count the shell). You don't see ANYTHING. You just know that the turtle was eaten by the two crocodile-like reptiles released into the water a few scenes earlier in the movie.

People are objecting to this! They're pitching fits! My thinking is, any kid who watches Animal Planet or a nature show on PBS has already seen the real thing, and I can guarantee that they saw blood, guts, and very sharp teeth. And if my four-year-old, who is highly sensitive, didn't care, it probably won't be much of a problem for your four-year-old, either. Furthermore, do you really want your kid to see a movie where crocs DON'T eat an animal, but leave it alone because it's all cute? That's fine for puppets, but what happens when you take your kid to the zoo and they think it'll be okay if they climb the fence into the crocodile enclosure? Don't worry, Mommy, it won't get me because I'm cute! Whatever.

Even from a storytelling perspective, it is important that the audience be shown that the reptiles in question are in fact dangerous. Why leave it to the last two scenes to show that they mean business? That's not how you create suspence. That's not how you set up a good story.

Now, the Scrat. This is my only complaint about the movie, really: too much Scrat. I know, he proves to be important, but the thing is, if you don't know that, it just seems like the director used a bunch of Scrat scenes as filler. Most of the time, it seems to halt the rest of the story.

Conclusion: Take the kids, you'll have some fun right along with them.

Insomniac Movie Review: Yours, Mine & Ours (the remake)

Yours, Mine, & Ours (2005) Starring Dennis Quaid as the Admiral/Dad and Rene Russo as the "free-spirited" (read: modern hippie) Mom, with Rip Torn as the Commandant and Linda Hunt (remember that short little principal in Kindergarten Cop? Yeah, her!) as the family domestic assistant

MPAA Rating: PG

Again I say, Not As Good As The Original.

But then, the original had Lucille Ball. You can't expect just anybody to walk in and fill Lucille's shoes. So it's okay. Also, the original comes off a bit dated now (which it is), so some of the jokes don't seem quite as funny. Also: the original has more focus on the parents and how they relate to each other and the new children. The remake has more focus on the kids, how they get along (or don't) with each other, etc., with parental focus being mainly on differences of opinion about child-rearing and soothing the nerves of their own children (but only the youngest ones).

Do not misunderstand: I did like this movie. It was cute in some places, silly in others, and it's always nice to see children and teenagers feuding in a non-violent way before learning to get along by ganging up on someone else in an equally non-violent way.

Also a plus for the kids: plenty of slapstick humor. Maybe not an adult's idea of smart cinema, but it's still funny to see all the weird stuff that ends up all over Dennis Quaid. Poor guy, I hope he got paid extra for all that. Especially the stuff with the pig. (I'm not even kidding. You'd think actors would say "No, I draw the line," but evidently swine kisses are on this side of Quaid's line.)

Unfortunately, it seems as if parts of the story that should have been left in for flow are left out for time constraints. I understand that; you don't want the movie to drag on and on. But it just seems like...something is missing, I guess. The story suffers for it. And you can feel it in the way the movie is edited. I'd have expected a little better from director Raja Gosnell, but my expectations are higher because I loved Scooby Doo 2 (which he also directed). Then again, I suppose I should blame the editor.

One more complaint: Most directors understand that when filming, it's important to make sure that your leads look beautiful/handsome at all times, unless they're part of a sight gag involving whipped cream or similar. Unfortunately, there is one scene in particular when Rene Russo (who really is a lovely woman), just looks awful. This is especially bad because it is clearly a scene in which she is supposed to look stunning, but the lighting highlights the lines in her face. I suppose it's because the scene was filmed outside (at least I think it was) and direct sunlight is nobody's friend. Still, there are lighting tricks you'd think Raja Gosnell would have pulled out of his hat. Since it is supposed the be this "Big Moment" in the film, in which Admiral Dad falls in love with Hippie Mom, it's kind of important that she look good. (Yeah, you can call me shallow for this. I know it seems that way. But you can learn a thing or two from listening to the director's commentary of Gary Marshall movies, which are always fabulous, and this is one of those things.)

So, other than a few minor complaints, I would say overall that this is a good movie to watch with your family. Also: rent the original (available on Netflix). Very cute, fun movies, both of these. (But really, how can Rene Russo hope to fill Lucy's shoes, even if she does have red hair?)