This review originally appeared on The Geeky Guide to Nearly Everything. For more related content, feel free to visit the site directly!

---

Yes, I'm finally getting to writing about some of the other things I did while in Los Angeles other than working and training Americans. On that note, however, I must admit it was fun to be the "expat" for a change.

Anyway, I was lucky enough to have some family still in the area while I was in the US - this was in the form of my "auntie" (You know how that works, right? It's a Filipino thing) who was nice enough to help me get a ticket for the show (practically in front, too!). They even offered to have dinner, take me there (since for some reason they didn't get tickets for themselves) and eventually pick me up after the show. Absolutely sweet, right? Yes, family is love indeed.

So after an afternoon spent at LACMA (I'll write about as well) and a quick dinner at Arby's (my auntie loves their signature sauce) it was off to Hollywood Boulevard to the historic Pantages Theatre for my first official taste of US musical theater.

Man, I was in for a treat beyond words.
For those sadly ignorant of the tale, Wicked is the story of how the Wicked Witch of the West (yes, in Oz terms) became so, well, wicked. If you've only read the official Oz books, then you'll have no idea what to expect from this story since it's not quite in that universe. The story is based on a book of the same name by author Gregory McGuire, who's known for reinterpreting classic fairy tales with more complex and "modern" plot twists.

Like most fans of musical theater living in the Philippines, I've long contented myself to listening to the official soundtrack over and over again to get a good feel for the show along with catching various clips of performances on YouTube or in one extreme case, the entire show recorded illegally as was uploaded to Google Video. Yes, the lengths we go to in the culture-starved Philippines, eh? Thus it was such a mind-blowing experience to finally get to watch the play, even if only in Los Angeles, which will never, ever be the same as New York to any true lover of theater.


rOckY at Pantages Theatre

First, the theater itself was gorgeous - it's one of the older ones in the country and for a good number of years was the location of the Academy Awards, so that definitely says something. It gives you that nice old theater feeling without excessively dark shadows or anything like that. I was in love with the ceiling designs and wish that photography inside the premises wasn't so frowned upon, hehe. Then again, I perfectly understand the logic behind the rule, don't get me wrong.

The cast for the night was pretty top-notch as well. Caissie Levy played Elphaba for the night and while she started a bit soft, she definitely ended things on a high note and made sure everyone understood why she got the part. Megan Hilty was an interesting Galinda / Glinda given that she added a bit of an LA spin, from my perspective. Beyond the typically bubbly characterization we've come to love based on Kristin Chenoweth's orignal performance, Hilty threw in a little Anna Nicole Smith for good measure, all the more embracing the stereotypical blonde image that the early Galinda seemed to personify.

Image via WikipediaWhat is certain is that both of the leads along with the rest of the cast really put a lot into their performance. Plays aren't about just one individual actor or performance but is the sum total of all the pieces coming together and showing itself to be a cohesive unit. I definitely have to give credit to the LA production for such a phenomenal job that gave someone like me more than his money's worth...even though I didn't pay for it myself.

The costumes were just jaw-droppingly breath-taking, I truly have to admit. Being able to see the various performers on stage in their highly intricate robes and outfits really made the difference for me - you just know that you wouldn't feel the same way if you saw this only on video. It's no wonder why they won the Tony Award for Costume Design.

The sets were something else as well, most definitely. there's a lot of stagecraft involved in pulling off a play like this - something that reminds me of the original run of Into the Woods with their revolving sets and such. Of course the most complicated item was the Time Dragon (at least so they say) but then there was a lot more to things than just that one piece of the set. I liked how everything came together and the performance for that evening was top notch - with so many things going on at any one time, mastery of the sets and manipulation of the various pieces was just essential.

Of course after the show I went apeshit over the official Wicked merchandise and bought a number of items meant to be given away to friends and such. My favorite items definitely have to be the two variant Wicked Glitter Globes that you can wind up to play the melodies of two major songs from the play. The Elphaba version of course plays Defying Gravity while the Galinda version happily chimes along to the tune of Popular.

Needless to say, I definitely enjoyed Wicked and can most definitely see why it got that close to winning the Tony for Best Musical had it not been for Avenue Q. Still, it's amazing piece of work on its own and as long as the casting remains that strong and the costumes and set that intricately beautiful, then any production of this stellar play is bound to deliver.

This review originally appeared on The Geeky Guide to Nearly Everything. For more related content, feel free to visit the site directly!

---

As a kid, I've always been a Spider-Man fan at heart. There's something about his character being a nerd who gets to fight crime with amazing powers that just enthralled me. It wasn't until my later years that I expanded my comic book interests outside of Spider-Man - also due to that horrible Clone Saga which just ruined things for me.

By this time, my mother had revived her own comic book interests and had built up a sizable Batman collection. Of course initially I was like, Batman? My mind inevitably recalled the old campy TV series with Adam West and their zany antics and cartoon sound effects captions appearing on screen. But of course, it was a long summer and I'm always starved for new things to read, and so I hunkered down and started exploring the world of the Dark Knight. Then I really got to understand just what made Batman great.

At the same time, I realized his rogues gallery was not your run-of-the-mill crew of criminals who follow particular patterns, at least not all of them. At the core was the Joker, quite literally a homicidal maniac that soon became the antithesis to Batman's attempts at restoring order to the city - the embodiment of chaos meant to eternally challenge Batman's view of order.

So when the buzz for the new Dark Knight movie started and people started talking about how Heath Ledger was interpreting the role, naturally I was pretty excited - finally we were going to see the Joker as he was meant to be, As much it was a shame that Heath died before getting a chance to see his finished work, it certainly was a worthy one for his legacy and perhaps the reason why so many people begin to wonder if "The Dark Knight" really should have been, "Joker" instead.

It would be inaccurate to say that Gotham is in a better place when the movie starts. Crime still happens and there are dirty cops fouling up the system. Organized crime continues to operate in the city and people still fear for their lives at tines. The one difference though is that one man continues to fight to retake the night - the Batman (Christian Bale). While officially the police denounce the masked vigelante, Lt. James Gordon (Gary Oldman) continue to work with the Batman.

There is a silver lining of sorts - the new District Attorney, Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckart) is driving a strong campaign to stop Gotham's criminal underworld one case at a time. He's become a shining beacon of inspiration to all as a "white knight" in these dark times, a stark contrast to the darker role that the Batman plays in the city and one that many wannabe heroes have started to look up to. Many fake Batmans have also started to appear around the city - average citizens taking on the mantle of the Bat in attempt to show their solidarity with his mission in trying to make Gotham better.

Just as it seems the combined efforts of these three individuals - Batman, Gordon and Dent - is about to make some serious headway in the fight against the local mobs, a new player enters the field. Initially he's thought to be some bit player staging small-time crimes and random bank heists but in time they realize he's more dangerous that any of them could have considered.

This movie was just AWESOME. Words fail me. It was the truest embodiment of the Joker I've ever seen and I have to admit that now all the more I regret Heath Ledger's passing since we will not be able to see anyone pull this off again in our lifetimes. The original line of Batman movies was somewhat dark, but in the end pandered to younger audiences and remained a children's novelty. This film was well beyond that, not interest in compromising their vision in the interests of marketability and thus we've been gifted with this dark yet compelling tale of hope, tragedy and loss.

But then of course the actors can only do so much with the material given to them, and thus kudos as well to the writers who crafted this story so well and helping each character become as real as possible. These were not merely character portrayals on screen - this was them telling a story so well that the characters seemed beyond real to us in the dark of the cinema. And yes, I know that also has to be attributed to skilled directing, and thus my eternal gratitude goes to Christopher Nolan for such a stellar job that was light years ahead of his work with Batman Begins.

The movie attempts to deal with some pretty heavy concepts well beyond basic good and evil, and I personally laud them for their efforts. This is not kid stuff (and having children under the age of 12/13 watch this seems dangerous to me now given the content) but really heavy philosophical argument with the characters as our examples, explanations and perhaps answers? Here the Joker is a true anarchist and he isn't limited to plans involving killer grins or smiling fish, but instead just goes from one act to the next with no predictable pattern. This movie is really trying to tell his story and by the end you can see how he's managed to affect pretty much everyone in the film or in Gotham City for that matter.

Things will never be the same again.

I'd love to go on, but I know this review is already longer than most - it sort of tells you how much I enjoyed this movie. As much as I want to talk further, I know I'll risk bringing up spoilers and I definitely don't want to do that. It remains my policy not to ruin things for those who haven't seen the movie since I hate it when people do that to me in turn. Then again if you do want to talk more, you know how to contact me - this geek is more than up for a midnight discussion or two about this movie.

This review originally appeared on The Geeky Guide to Nearly Everything. For more related content, feel free to visit the site directly!

---

I finally got to catch Hot Fuzz on HBO today.

I know, I know, you're all looking at this entry in a funny way right now thinking "Why only now?" or "What kind of a geek are you?" or even "LOSER! It's about time!" and other thoughts of that nature. I'm sorry, okay? I've yet to find to on "Asian version" DVD and I don't feel all that keen to download a movie like that - I want to see it in the living room with the bigger TV and our decent little mini-theater sound system. That's only fair, right? Does that help me salvage some geek points?

It probably won't help that I caught it through sheer accident and not me doing the right thing in terms of proper geeky research into when the movie would be out an such. Were it not for my partner coming home with food, thus forcing me to go downstairs and leave the computer, I never would have caught it. It's a shame he was too tired to watch as well - he fell asleep a bit before I discovered it was showing and resisted my attempts to wake him up and get him as excited about the movie as I was.

Hot Fuzz is the story of an overachieving London policeman named Nicolas Angel (Simon Pegg) who gets reassigned to the small and relatively crime-free town of Sandford. While he tries his best to remain useful in policemen terms, the town is just too perfect and the best cases he gets involve a large group of underage drinkers and a crazy old man with a stash of weapons including a sea mine. His well-meaning partner Danny Butterman (Nick Frost) is excited about what he might learn from his out-of-town colleague, although tries to remind him of the sad fact that Sandford just isn't as crime-ridden as London is.

At least, that's what it seems until Angel begins to realize that as much as crime is extremely low, the local accident rate is very high and this sets him on the trail of a larger conspiracy that shows that this little town is not what it seems.

Image via WikipediaHot Fuzz is another product of the mind of Edgar Wright, the same genius behind the cult classic Shaun of the Dead (which sadly I have also yet to see - BAD rOckY!) and features much of the same wit and humor within a macabre setting that he's become somewhat known for. While there were no flesh-eating zombies this time around, there were gun-toting old folks, and you know how that's guaranteed to make you laugh. Sequences like that always make me think back to the old Avengers TV series for some reason.

At the core of this movie is the concept of the Bristish Copper, a somewhat stereotype explored by various TV shows and books like how Terry Pratchett characterizes the Anhk Morpork City Watch in his Discworld novels. Angel is Wright's attempt at bringing to life the true "fuzz" in his own right and he manages this pretty well. Credit definitely has to go to Simon Pegg for his performance in this movie.

If you haven't managed to watch this movie yet (as I had not less than 24 hours ago), the you definitely need to make the time. Check your TV schedules! Run out to by the DVD! Steam it online or download it for multiple viewings! Anything, just go see it!

This review originally appeared on The Geeky Guide to Nearly Everything. For more related content, feel free to visit the site directly!

---

I can't quite explain what made me come to love ABBA. It could be the exposure I got from my mother in terms of their music since had a general appreciation for them or maybe there was just something about their music that elicited smiles from me and drove me to appreciate their works as a whole. Whatever the case may be, I am an ABBA fan and combining that with my love for musical theater means that it was only a matter of time before I'd get around to Mamma Mia! the musical.

I almost got to see the stage production while I was in California last May, but then by the time we got around to trying to schedule a time to go see it, the tour group had left for a farther part of California that it no longer became feasible for us to go and see it. Thus the next best thing for me was to wait for the movie, which finally opened last week. Of course my partner and I were pretty excited to see it and we finally found time to do just that the very first Sunday after its local release.

Mamma Mia! is not a musical about the band, ABBA, but is instead a story told through the existing songs of ABBA. Musicals typically require original music to be written in order to help the characters express what they're feeling or thinking at the time. In this case, they didn't go looking for new songs but instead looked at all the songs already created by the group and tried to craft a story that weaves all the songs together. Given that kind of a goal, naturally the story isn't the greatest in the world, but that's not really the point of the musical and by the same vein it isn't the point of the movie either.

Image by Getty Images via DaylifeThe movie certainly had a lot going for it in terms of cast - it managed to snag the legendary Meryl Streep as Donna, the mother of soon-to-be-wed Sophie (Amanda Seyfield, previously the weather-forecasting Mean Girl). Who could have predicted that she'd be able to carry more than just a decent tune but would in fact bring her same acting prowess to her interpretation of the music? Seyfield was also pretty good in her performance as a genuinely confused daughter trying to figure out which of the three men she's invited to her wedding really is her biological father. Of course the trio of potential fathers was pretty strong as well given they were played by Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth and Stellan Skarsgard.

I was also surprised at how well Julie Walters and Christine Baranski complemented Meryl Streep in their roles as Rosie and Tanya respectively. As a trio they may appear rather old and not suited for elaborate singing and dancing, but then they managed to convey the only kind of energy that the truly young at heart can consistently muster at any age.

What really drives this film is the music and how much everyone appreciated and embraced all that is ABBA. The group was never meant to be serious and certainly doesn't fit your typical kind of musical either. There's an intrinsic campiness that comes with the 70's and most especially ABBA's music. You can tell the cast and crew enjoyed making the movie and they themselves enjoyed how silly things get at certain parts of the film. It has everything you expect from an over-the-top camp-fest - large and elaborate dance numbers, characters randomly bursting into song at odd moments and of course a general and healthy dose of good-natured fun.

While it's not necessarily a requirement to be an ABBA fan or to even know the songs in order to enjoy this film, it certainly helps. If you don't have an ABBA background, then you need to understand the kind of campiness and silly fun that the group represents for us from a social history point of view and it's not meant to be taken seriously. If you do love their music, then you're bound to enjoy the movie even more as you get genuinely surprised at how the various songs are introduced into the film and the kind of messages they're made to deliver for the characters.

ABBA is a fun and light movie that certainly helps clear ones head of even the most stressful work experiences or whatever. Just suspend judgment as you enter and leave your skepticism and reason at the door and just let your mind be carried away by the music as the movie runs its course.

This review originally appeared on The Geeky Guide to Nearly Everything. For more related content, feel free to visit the site directly!

---

This US summer movie season has been mainly about comic book inspired films. True, there have been a slew of other films out at the same time that aren't necessarily about comic book characters, but of course the ones that we mostly remember or have been getting excited about fall into this genre.

Wanted was one of those movies that remind me why I choose to do reviews with the source material taken to one side. It's just not fair to compare such films with the original material since Hollywood is more than well-known to deviate in the interests of making the film more approachable or marketable.

Given they cast Angelina Jolie in this movie - someone known to fulfill the stereotypical teenage gamer's fantasies in her movie choices and the statements made about how they tried to make the movie as "real world" as possible instead of totally embracing the original comic book concept and had some hesitations about the film. Still, it looked cool and I have a thing for James McAvoy ever since he appeared in the Children of Dune mini-series.

The original comic book involved a story about a group of super villains. The movie on the other hand changed things around and follows the tale of a secret society of assassins (somehow descended from weavers) who kill in order to save the world, or something to that effect. Wesley (McAvoy), a boring run-of-the-mill average Joe discovers that his father was part of this Fraternity and now he's destined to follow in his footsteps.

The overall concept / plot for the movie was a bit weird to begin with, and this was definitely one of those areas that you wished that the producers opted to follow the original story a lot closer. The Hollywood fluff replacement story was really weak and required the viewer to take some major leaps in logic in order to appreciate the story, more or less. Not exactly your ideal concept.

The action was the best part of the movie, as expected. Beyond plot development and improving characterization, they invested a lot into dynamic fight sequences and of course the infamous curving bullets. In this aspect it's rather fun and entertaining to watch, although I'd have to agree with some reviewers who say that instead of making a mark for itself, it reminds one more of other movies like it. Yes, weren't you thinking of re-watching The Matrix again after seeing it? That's exactly my point.

Image via WikipediaAngelina Jolie's acting was, well, typical for her and that's not saying much, but I really did enjoy James McAvoy's decent effort to mask his Scottish accent with an American one. Sure, it slipped from time to time but then considering how thick it is normally, that's quite a feat in itself. Plus he continues what appears to be becoming a movie habit of his to walk around shirtless - although he's REALLY hot now, LOL. Thank you gym work!

Morgan Freeman was brought in for star power and his typecast of playing the somewhat elderly and wise mentor. However he's normally all cool, calm and collected in his films and his role in this movie seemed a bit too emotional for his own good. Biggest lesson of the film is that Morgan Freeman cannot swear in a believable fashion. It just sounded wrong and unnatural to me throughout the film.

Credit has to go to the director for putting effort into recreating certain key scenes and moments from the original comic book, similar to how they tried to bring 300 to life in a fashion that was as accurate as possible during certain key scenes. This was mostly evident in the characterization of Wesley before he really got into the whole superhuman assassin bit and they do deserve kudos there for that part of things.

When you put everything all together, you still end up with a pretty cool movie with great action but with a plot that barely holds water. Sure, some would argue that you really shouldn't expect too much from a summer action flick, but then that doesn't mean we're going to watch just about anything. If you're a die-hard fan of the original comic book, you probably won't be able to enjoy this movie much without a lot of effort put into trying to forget how great the original source material is.

This review originally appeared on The Geeky Guide to Nearly Everything. For more related content, feel free to visit the site directly!

---

Initially I wasn't expecting much from the movie Kung-Fu Panda. I mean seriously, it's a panda trying to do kung-fu? You know that's a bit of a stretch of the imagination and the marketing was clearly towards a younger audience. As much as it seemed like just another kiddie movie full of fluff, word-of-mouth reviews started to spread after the opening week and more and more people started to recommend seeing the film.

I have to admit, all the talk got me curious and given how long the movie ran here, it had to mean something in terms of its viability. Thus finally during the opening weekend of The Incredible Hulk, my partner and I figured it was a higher priority to go and see Kung-Fu Panda before the run ended as opposed to yet another Marvel comic book movie.

We weren't disappointed in the choice that we made.

Kung-Fu Panda tells the tale of Po, an anthropomorphic Panda in medieval China who has always dreamed far beyond the austere walls of his father's noodle shop. His dreams come true when for some reason it's determined that he's the Dragon Warrior who is destined to master kung-fu and defeat Tai Lung in order to save everyone. A pretty tall order for a Panda who has a duck for a father.

Image by suksim via FlickrIn order to prepare him, the other kung-fu masters of the various styles need to prepare him, a group of powerful warriors known as the Furious Five - Tigress, Crane Mantis, Viper, and Monkey, all under the tutelage of Master Shifu.

The movie is quite funny - what else is to be expected from a Dreamworks CGI production these days, rights? Sure, it's no Shrek, but it does garner a lot of good jokes and reasons to laugh pretty heartily. I suppose it helps that Po is voiced by Jack Black, whose off-key humor is pretty enjoyable, depending on your tastes and preferences.

Including Jack Black, the voice talents assembled for this film were pretty impressive - Angelina Jolie, Jackie Chan, Seth Rogen, Lucy Liu, David Cross and the biggest surprise of Dustin Hoffman as Master Seifu. Seriously, had I not watched any of the pre-release specials on TV, I would have had no clue it was him. It turns out he's a really good choice to play a tiny kung-fu master, hahaha.

The quality of the animation was also great considering Dreamworks seems to be aiming for a mix of the cartoon stylizing that seems to have become par for the course for Pixar but combined with some highly realistic elements in attempt to bring China to life. Thus the characters manage to stand out a bit as cartoon elements against the stunning realism of the backgrounds, something that makes you think of the old movies that tried to mix in cartoons with live actors.

The story itself was just okay, I suppose. At the end of the day, it's still a children's movie and so that doesn't leave room for Oscar-winning screenplays. It has its fair share of sight gags, guips, plot twists and fun moments which should appeal to children and general and pick up some adults on the way back. I just wish it ended better - the movie does leave you with that feeling of feeling there should have been more to it. While in theory that's a good thing from a movie perspective, it wasn't the sense of fulfillment that you get knowing this chapter was ended and a new one could still happen. It was more like a feeling of "what? it's over already" - general confusion into wondering where the rest of it went.

Overall, it was a pretty "awesome" movie, to borrow a favored term from the film. It way better than expected and definitely worth the time and effort to see. It's not just idle hype but good praise for a light and entertaining movie in these troubling times.

This review originally appeared on The Geeky Guide to Nearly Everything. For more related content, feel free to visit the site directly!

---

During my first weekend back in Manila after spending 10 weeks in Los Angeles (and hardly blogging to boot), my partner and I decided to catch the then-new Sex and the City movie given (1) it was the opening weekend, (2) we were fans of the original series and (3) we like watching movies in the theater together. Then again, what couple doesn't right?

Anyway, on with the story / review.

So initially my personal expectations were somewhat mixed given any TV-to-film migration tends to have its fair share of difficulties and peculiarities. Let's face it - the original TV series ended years ago and there's a whole new generation of viewers who can't fully appreciate the original show and think that the ultimate definition of a strong female lead can be found amongst the cast of Grey's Anatomy. Sorry, did I mention previously that I'm not a fan of that show? If I didn't or if you didn't know that, allow me to stress that fact here.

What I had totally forgotten was how notorious the MTRCB can get when it comes to gratuitous censorship and movie editing and so my partner ended up watching Sex and the City sans the sex parts. Geez.

The Sex and the City movie takes off a few years after the original series ended, which sort of gives you that feeling of spying on your favorite characters after the narrator ends the fairy tale with "...and they live happily ever after." The characters are still pretty much the same but the circumstances are different given they're not all the same strong, independent single women the used to be. At least, not all of them.

Now as much as Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) is pretty much happy as a clam with her Vogue job and her understanding with her more-or-less boyfriend, Big (his codename was so much cooler) and so it seems only natural that they take things to the next level and get married. It's around this central event that the film revolves as we follow Carrie while at the same time exploring how the other fabulous women in this quartet have developed over the years.

Image by Getty Images via DaylifeOverall, it was a good movie and actually was a pretty good piece considering it was originally a TV series. I guess it helps that it was an HBO original series and not just any other run-of-the-mill network program since this represents how it has always pushed the limits of television while trying to adhere to a quality of storytelling that feels more along the lines of big screen films. Thus for the actresses and actors involved, it didn't come out as some major transition.

What I really appreciated was the plot in a general sense - it takes a certain amount of daring to have a movie based on a TV series to heavily rely on knowledge of the show. If you had never seen the original TV series before then you'd never come to understand how far the characters have come over the years, their unique perspective on things and just why Carrie has accepted her unusual status with Big in the first place. You could argue that the film could probably, possibly stand on its own but then that would be a totally inaccurate statement. This movie practically requires you to watch the original series - every single last episode.

What really bothered me and definitely hampered my viewing experience was just how much was cut out of the film. There was just so much lost ranging from full-blown nudity to two gay men kissing in the freaking background. I mean come on, that's why we have ratings, right? Who is the MTRCB to determine the ideal audience for a particular film by editing the content a they see fit? This was a movie that was definitely worth seeing in the big screen given the fashionable yet often outlandish outfits the girls wear, the elaborate sequences and even the cheesily remixed theme song. However given what was done to the film, this pretty much forces you get the film on DVD (original or otherwise) just to see all the bits you missed.

Still, let's focus on the positive.

This film is a nice way to revisit the original series and fans of the show should find a lot to like about it. If you didn't watch the original show, you still might get something out of it but I'm not quite sure if I should recommend that you go see the series just to enjoy it fully. I guess that's the ultimate question - did this movie really need to have been made? The series was pretty solid on its own and so what purpose does this film have in terms of the overall scheme of things?

What do you think?

This review originally appeared on The Geeky Guide to Nearly Everything. For more related content, feel free to visit the site directly!

---

Okay, so with very limited pride I have to admit that the last movie I saw on my flight back to Manila via Taipei was 27 Dresses. Yes, I watched 27 Dresses, is that so wrong? I am a gay man after all, right?

Anyway, I ended up with this piece since (1) it honestly seemed interesting to me, (2) I like Katherine Heigl even though I don't like Grey's Anatomy and (3) deep down inside, we're all a sucker for romantic comedies. Okay, that last item doubly applies when you're (a) gay or (b) campy, both of which apply to me, LOL.

So after managing a few hours of sleep in my uncomfortable economy class seat, I slipped my headset on and watched this little chick flick.

The story behind the movie is pretty simple. Our protagonist Jane (Heigl) has somehow managed to grow up perfectly living the old adage about "always a bridesmaid, never a bride." In fact, she's gone a bit extreme in this sense since she's gone through 27 different weddings as documented by the 27 different bridesmaid dresses she's collected over the years. You'd think by now she'd be getting closer to getting married as well, right?

It's not that she's not without love options - in fact she's madly (yet secretly) in love with her boss George (Edward Burns) and has recently attracted the attention of journalist Kevin (James Marsden). These are more or less the basic plot elements - I don't want to give up too much since that might spoil it for folks still keen on seeing it.

Image by Getty Images via DaylifeFor the most part, I have to admit I enjoyed it. Heigl's character was rather well-written and wasn't too unrealistic. They made sure to explain what drove her life-long wedding obsession and how this affected her overall personality development over the years in order to always be the "perfect bridesmaid". It also helps that Heigl has become a rather respectable actress herself and her performance was pretty good.

The overall plot was a bit shaky, but then again it's a chick flick so it's oriented to a particular audience. Some of the supporting cast could have been better fleshed out and that includes Marsden's role, in my opinion. He just seemed a too inconsistent and not quite as solid as I'd have liked him to be.

The writing was pretty good too and how they chose to craft the scenes and the lines they threw in certainly merit citation and appreciation. Comedy writing is not at all easy and keeping the comedy witty and well-above the slapstick / gross-out level that most comedies occupy these days is a minor feat in itself.

While this movie will not make you want to write an essay analyzing the plight of sad single women being overtaken in the marriage race by their younger siblings, it remains to be a light, smarty and witty romantic comedy that you can certainly sit down to one lazy Saturday night with a loved one or friends. Don't forget the pop corn, of course. You'll need something to do in the slower parts.

This review originally appeared on The Geeky Guide to Nearly Everything. For more related content, feel free to visit the site directly!

---

The second of the three movies that I watched on the tiny LCD screen during my flight from Los Angeles to Taipei was Cloverfield, the J.J. Abrams monster movie that got souped up on a healthy dose of The Blair Witch Project. when the movie originally came out, I was somewhat skeptical about the movie concept since they were one again playing the shaky camera gimmick and the whole pseudo-indie feel. I have to admit I'm not exactly a big J.J. Abrams fan (and no, I'm not a fan of the LOST TV series either) so the name factor wasn't enough to draw me in. Yes, I remember that he's currently helming the Star Trek IX project and I have suspended judgment until the movie actually comes out.

However when you're on a 13-hour flight next to a rather unpleasant-smelling Japanese guy, then you might as well hunker down and try to enjoy whatever movies that show the least amount of potential.

I'm pretty sure the whole tiny LCD viewing experience added another element of challenge in watching the movie for me, but overall I have to admit that I rather enjoyed the film and would be willing to see it again on DVD. That's what I get for letting hype get in the way of deciding whether or not to watch a film.

Image via WikipediaCloverfield is the story of a mega monster attack on the city of New York akin to the Godzilla movies of the past. However the twist here is that instead of tracking the organized resistance against the monster, J.J. Abrams opted to capture the story from the perspective of the people on the ground. Hence the need for the consumer shaky camera effect and the need to flesh out a back story with relatively unknown, mostly TV actors. It was certainly a bold idea and the kind of creative film making we don't see as much of in these financially-driven entertainment times.

First off, let's take the concept itself. While the notion of a monster movie isn't at all new, the way Cloverfield was presented was certainly original and refreshing. You can really feel the sense of panic and uncertainty as you follow the characters around the city as they try to seek safety. You don't even get to see much of the actual monster except for stolen glimpses and TV news coverage given at the level of the average man on the street, you just don't get automatically entitled to aerial shots. They remained very consistent with keeping in line with this POV without giving into the temptation to switching to a "narrator" or going back to Hollywood wide angle shots just to show more of the city and the monster.

Next comes the core story. For this movie, the monster was not the focus nor was the country's government fighting off the monster. Instead we get stuck with this very normal group of friends who were just at a party some hours earlier and are now running for their lives. They could have done the predictable thing and just made their story focus on their trying to run away and survive, but they didn't. Instead they gave the characters a pseudo-quest of sorts from a classic storytelling sense and the intrepid group decided to push forward despite everything going on. It wasn't at all far-fetched given the characterizations done for them and it's a whole lot better than having a group of average New Yorkers somehow managing to find a way to defeat the monster - admit it, you thought that might be a possible use for them, right?

When you put it all together, it's a very simple story set against very unusual circumstances and told in a very compelling way. The focus here was the story of the characters as a group and not for any one of them as "main" protagonists. Sure, there's that weird love story angle going on, but at the end of things it was about the cast as a collective ensemble, which made sense. they made sure not to use big name actors not because of budget but more because their fame would actually act as a distraction instead of a way of helping things along.

That's really what I like the most about Cloverfield - that it was about the story. Not the actors. Not the special effects. Not the monster. It was about people and how we follow them through the gloom as they try and tell a story.

We need more movies that remember to have a core story at heart.

This review originally appeared on The Geeky Guide to Nearly Everything. For more related content, feel free to visit the site directly!

---

In a somewhat surprise change of pace compared to the past films I had been watching, I accompanied a friend to watch the Patrick Dempsey chick flick Made of Honor. Admittedly, it wasn't a movie I would plan out to watch on my own, all things being equal. Still, I can't say I was totally opposed to seeing it since at the very least, Dempsey is rather cute.

The movie centers around the Best Friend Syndrome, as I like to call it, where one best friend realizes after a significant amount of time that he actually fallen in love with the other. In this case the pairing involves Tom (Dempsey) and Hannah (Michelle Monaghan). Of course in typical Hollywood fashion, Hannah finds the man she wants to marry, Colin (Kevin McKidd), just as Tom realizes this. To make matters worse, Hannah asks Tom to be her Maid of Honor, simply because he is her absolutely best friend in the world. The unusual situation present Tom with an opportunity to somehow disrupt the wedding but at the same time still show he's supportive of all this as the Maid of Honor.

Right off the bat, one can't help but compare the film's plot to that of My Best Friend's Wedding, which has long established itself as (1) a classic chick flick, (2) a classic Julia Roberts movie and (3) a generally accepted good piece of movie film-making across genres. It was a movie that had a little something for everyone. To try and somehow go up against a pre-established cult classic like this is a bit unrealistic in some ways, but the people behind Made of Honor did make a serious attempt to distance themselves from that piece.

Image by Getty Images via DaylifeFirst, they clearly established how Tom and Hannah became best friends and those were certainly unusual circumstances. They presented how different their characteristics were and the unusual relationship they developed over time. I can't really go into detail since I've never been in the habit of overwhelming everyone with spoilers that just ruin things.

Second, the whole Made of Honor aspect is a bit of a twist since they decided to play the gender card. This opened the door for a lot of gay insinuations on Dempsey's behalf and they created additional tension with the other bridesmaids competing for attention and the limelight.

Thirdly, you throw in the husband-to-be in the form of Colin (who you might remember from the HBO series Rome and the GLBT film Bedrooms and Hallways) who isn't as annoying as they made Cameron Diaz to be in My Best Friend's Wedding. They made him as universally appealing as possible and tried to stack the odds in his favor, making Dempsey's character the non-logical choice for Hannah's potential husband.

The movie was fairly well written and had its share of entertaining moments and funny situations. They didn't go over-the-top slapstick and tried to make sure there was a fair amount of witty banter and good dialog.

Sure, it's not going to change your life to see this film and I wouldn't necessarily go out of my way to run to the theaters and catch it on its opening weekend. Still, it's a fun and light romantic comedy with its fair share of good writing and interesting plot twists and of course, a lot of Patrick Dempsey. I don't suppose that's worth complaining about.

This review originally appeared on The Geeky Guide to Nearly Everything. For more related content, feel free to visit the site directly!

---

After the mixed success of the first Disney-sponsored Narnia film adaptation, I wasn't surprised to hear about work on a sequel. Let's face it - we live in a post-LOTR world and epic movies and fantasy series are instantly appealing to movie makers and their financial supporters.

The initial trailers certainly showed a lot of promise and of course the new spotlight on young actor Ben Barnes certainly helped spur things along as well. Let's face it - geeks like me always have cause to celebrate the continued support (and to some extent monetization) of fantasy stories and their limelight on the silver screen.

It was certainly an experience to watch the film at the historic Pacific El Capitan Theatre on Hollywood Boulevard since this essentially was the Disney theater and they pulled out all the stops to make the screening memorable. Beyond the film itself, the theater had been decorated to feel like an Underground tunnel in the middle of the war and a special museum of set pieces and costumes from the film had been set up in the basement as well. I entered the theater with as little expectations as possible - something that's very important when it comes to both sequels and adaptations. Let's face it - you can never really beat the original work at times so it becomes unfair to even try to compare them.

The tale of Prince Caspian takes place one year after the events of the first film, at least in a "real world" sense, but far longer in Narnia time. The Penvensie children are older and tend to act like annoying adolescents (as they should) and as an odd solution to this circumstance, things come together in order to drag them back to the magical world of Narnia. They find that far too many years have past and Narnia is at work with the Telmarines with most of the magical folk gone into hiding. At the same time, the Prince Caspian of the Telmarines (Ben Barnes) has run away from a plot to have him assassinated in order to seize the throne and he has no other choice but to seek the aid of the Narnians to retake his royal rights.

In classic Disney-Narnian fashion, the film has a fair collection of interesting creatures and well crafted costumes and creature designs. They've certainly gotten somewhat better at bring the magical creatures to life in many respects although at the same time you'd think there'd be a different variety of creatures beyond what we've already seen. Oh well.

The story was rather good and I appreciated how the writers tried to inject more natural humor into the dialog as opposed to how serious and somewhat somber the first film had been. A good audience is sure to pick up on this and it makes the movie experience a lot better to have a lot of people, both young and old, laughing along with you.

As much as I try not to compare the adaptation to the original medium, it must be noted that the movie does take certain liberties in terms of deviating from the original work in order to up the entertainment value, build stronger ties with the original movie and further develop the characters. Some purists have been complaining about the changes, but I feel the changes were only done in an attempt to make the story better and to further flesh out the characters so they don't seem so wooden and one-dimensional.

Overall, it's a pretty entertaining film that has a lot in store for fans of the series but also has a lot for newcomers both young and old. It's not strictly a "kiddie film" but retains that Disney stamp of family wholesomeness.

And Ben Barnes is pretty fetching. =P

This review originally appeared on The Geeky Guide to Nearly Everything. For more related content, feel free to visit the site directly!

---

While I doubt you could ever call me one of the world's biggest Indiana Jones fans, I have always had a pretty good appreciation for the original trilogy. You have to admit, the Indy movies hearken back to a simpler style of movie making that was less about special effects and more about intricate plots, witty dialog and really fun action sequences.

When they announced that a fourth movie was in the works so many years at the original trilogy had ended, I have to admit that I was rather skeptical. I mean come on - all the original players were either much older or dead (no disrespect meant), and the whole genre of Indy movies just might not make the transition well into the "modern" realm of special effects heavy action films and much simpler plots in favor of wider audience appeal.

When I did finally make the trek to the ArcLight theaters in Los Angeles to catch the movie during opening weekend, I was pleased to find that it was actually very enjoyable and a great addition to the pre-existing Indiana Jones films.

Image via WikipediaIndiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (which is the longest Indy title to date in terms of number of letters) is set about ten years after the resolution of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Naturally, Nazis are no longer a viable adversary so instead we're left with the Cold War Russians and still Indy (as can only be played by Harrison Ford) is still gallivanting around the world and getting himself into trouble.

This film was the most science fiction related of the series, at least in my opinion, given the involvement of mysteriously magnetic objects and mention of an incident at Roswell, New Mexico. Oh come on, you have to know what that means, right? Regardless of your recollection of pop culture, let's push on.

At the forefront of the Russion contingent is the somewhat loopy Col. Dr. Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), who appears obsessed with ESP and all things paranormal. She is a really fun character and as single-minded and driven as any other Indy villain, although she really knows how to work her hair.

Thrown into the mix (as all the pre-movie spoilers made sure we all knew) was the involvement of Shia LeBeouf as Indy's son Mutt, and the real mystery was trying to figure out when exactly did Indy have time to sire another Jones. Shia certainly seems to be growing into better roles (and his looks to boot) and I have to admit he was a pretty good call in terms of casting for this piece.

Now overall I have to admit that this is a movie custom-made for fans of the original trilogy. There are a lot of obscure references to previous events and even recurring characters whose behaviors have changed very little over time, but you'd need to have seen the previous films to get that. This is not to say that this movie boxes out newcomers to the Indiana Jones experience, as it were. In fact the movie remains a solid piece of film-making and certainly is able to stand on its own regardless of past knowledge.

At the same time, however, I definitely can't say that this is an amazing film on its own. A lot of my personal enjoyment came from being a longtime fan of the series and its hard to judge the film without those preconceptions. I can say that it definitely is a very good Indy movie and a worth addition to the franchise. Heck, it's better than some of the prior ones, but definitely not the best in the series overall.

One definitely has to appreciate the effort Steven Spielberg put into putting this film together while still trying to retain the original style. It was reported that he tried to keep the special effects to a minimum, thus the usual stunt-driven events and sequences often degenerating into hardcore slugfests in typical Indy style.

This is a great movie to enjoy with the family since it's not racy nor is it overly violent. It has a solid story, excellent writing and something for both older fans and newbies to enjoy.

This review originally appeared on The Geeky Guide to Nearly Everything. For more related content, feel free to visit the site directly!

---

One of the older Anime cartoons that I ever got into was Speed Racer, originally Mach GoGoGo in Japan. It was a strange series that was a bit beyond my normal interests (at the time mostly robot cartoons like Transformers and Voltron) given it was pretty much just some guy with a fancy race car. Still, there was an innate campiness associated with the series that was just too hard to completely ignore and given the original period in which the cartoon was created, it was pretty "high tech" compared to other shows.

When it was announced that a live-action Speed Racer movie was to be created, I was a bit skeptical since a lot of the appeal of the show was intrinsically tied to its often over-the-top nature and unrealistic stunts. As much as Speed's car, the Mach 5, had a lot of high tech enhancements and gadgets, it still couldn't have possibly done a lot of the things it did in the original show. To somehow bring this into a more modern setting with the same level of surrealism would definitely turn-off audiences unfamiliar with the original appeal of the cartoon.

When the movie did come out, I was of mixed feelings about it. Perhaps in the course of this entry, I'll come to a more definite final opinion of sorts, haha.

Image via WikipediaThe Speed Racer movie loosely follows the original cartoon. We're still following the adventures of the racing-obsessed Racer family primarily centering around their second son Speed Racer (Emile Hirsch) who now races using the Mach 5 as part of the racing team of his father, Pops Racer (John Goodman). The whole family is still there with a much better fleshed-out version of Mom Racer, as portrayed by Susan Sarandon. This was both a good and a bad thing since the slapstick antics of Spritle (Paulie Litt) and Chim Chim were a bit annoying when done in live-action.

If taken independently of the original cartoon, I'd have to admit that the movie felt rather slow and drawn-out in certain points with the generous amount of flashbacks and the need to have the camera go around the character so much that it's bound to make your head spin. Then again when you remember the cartoon, these sequences make a lot more sense since the show did have a lot of long and drawn out sequences and seemingly unnecessary verbose speeches and circular dialog. This is one case where you can't really ignore the original show since the the movie was designed as an homage of sorts, trying its best not to change too much of the original story while trying to update it to be a bit more hip and modern.

Somehow the primary method of making the movie as dynamic as possible was by using garishly bright colors that would make you feel you've been tripping on magic mushrooms while watching the film. I know they wanted to convey that cartoon-ish feel by using such painfully vibrant colors and to some extent they achieved that effect at the cost of our ability to see things clearly outside of the cinema for the first 30 minutes after the movie.

Overall the movie seemed at work with itself. In some parts it was clearly a children's movie - shallow with lessons on morals and values amidst antics involving a chimpanzee and way too much sugar. In contrast, it was also attempting to be a somewhat more serious action-drama with some pretty heavy themes and concepts and out-of-your-mind racing sequences. This part of the film could only work if you were a fan or at least fairly aware of how the original series worked since without that kind of background, you'd find a lot of the sequences overly forced and just too long.

The movie constantly had me thinking of the Gwen Stefani song, Bubble Pop Electric for some reason - perhaps because it's a fast-paced song that's highly bouncy and yet mostly a lot of fluff.

Overall I liked it, but mainly as a fan of the original series. On its own the movie doesn't really carry its weight and I shudder to think of what a sequel might feel like. At least the music was fun - I have to admit I enjoyed the closing credits just because of the soundtrack.

This review originally appeared on The Geeky Guide to Nearly Everything. For more related content, feel free to visit the site directly!

---

I've been a Marvel Comics kind of guy for most of my life. I've nothing against DC or any of the other comic book companies - I just happened to start with them and things pretty much grew from there. I've always had an appreciation for many of the characters and one of those that caught my periferal attention was Iron Man, mainly because of the slightly robotic nature of a man in a metal suit. You do remember that I have a thing for robots, right?

I never bought the comic books apart from a few random ones that I got as part of multi-title packages, but of course like any other good comic book geek, I made sure to more or less know the basics about the character. I always found his story rather interesting given the character flaws they decided to give him over the years and it certainly made for a pretty well-rounded comic.

Now when they announced the making of an Iron Man movie, I had mixed feelings about it. I mean let's face it, Marvel movies are a bit hit-or-miss depending on how they're handled and the amount of focus that gets put on the CGI and other special effects as opposed to the actual characters and storyline. The initial previews of the movie certainly looked good, but of course it remained to be seen if the folks behind the film would be able to bring it to life on the silver screen in a manner that would be appealing to fans young and old.

At first glance, the casting behind the movie didn't make much sense. Robert Downey, Jr.'s movie track record has been some what spotty as of late and he's had more air time on the evening news than on the big screen. Gwyneth Paltrow is a fine actress on her own but personally I wasn't sure about how good a fit she was as Pepper Potts. Throw in the lack of a big name Marvel villain and little-known director Jon Favreau of Elf and Zathura fame sitting in the director's chair and you can't help but hesitate to explore yet another Marvel Hollywood venture.

Yet despite those diverse elements seemingly working against the potential success of the movie, I have to admit I really enjoyed it when I did get to see it. Sure, we were all expecting to be dazzled by the special effects and such but I'm not just talking about that - I really did like it as a complete movie experience.

Downey was pretty good as playboy industrialist Tony Stark and did a great job of essentially playing himself. We have to give that to him - he knows how to be sleazily charming when he wants to, haha. Gwyneth Paltrow may not have been the perfect replica of the original Petter Potts in the comic book, but she certainly did define the character well on her own terms and executed things well. You have to admit she was a pretty interesting character in terms of the overall film.

Jeff Bridges was generally okay as Obidiah Stane and the slight reinterpretation of his character was plausible enough. The Iron Monger was never really a stand out Iron Man villain for me so I wasn't amazingly enthused with that angle, but what can you do, right? I also was rather miffed with their choice of Terrence Howard as Jim "War Machine" Rhodes. Appearance-wise, I guess I can't find immediate fault. However, my issue is both simple yet simplistic - his voice. I mean come on - all the Iron Man / Avengers cartoons made sure he had a full-bodied voice that matched his sterner, gruffer military attitude. Instead we got Howard with his squeakier, higher-pitched voice. Oh joy.

In terms of story, the producers played it safe and stuck to the classic Hollywood comic book movie formula of Origin - Discovery / Mastery of Abilities - Confrontation. The only difference in this case is that it was rather well-executed and what came out was a solid story and not a haphazard special effects extravaganza. The Movie Preview Critic's analysis of why this may be so brings us back to the director with little or no action movie experience. Somehow by crossing genres from comedies / dramas, movies that are highly people / character focused, they bring a new spin on things and ensure greater emphasis on the human element as opposed to just making really dramatic special effects sequences. I have to admit, I find his theory to be generally sound and we've seen this success in recent movies of this nature.

Iron Man is not going to change your life. What it will do is ensure you have a good time at the movies and it'll definitely get you your full bang for your movie ticket buck. It has all the classic elements of an entertaining action piece in terms of stunning visual sequences and witty dialog that are sure to keep you preoccupied for the entire 2 hours++ of screen time. As much as you want to just wait for this on DVD, I strongly urge you to see this in the theaters with the best possible sound and projection technology so you really get to do this movie justice.

This review originally appeared on The Geeky Guide to Nearly Everything. For more related content, feel free to visit the site directly!

---

When we couldn't get timely enough tickets for Iron Man, we ended up checking out the films being shown at the Graumann's Chinese 6 theaters when this film caught my eye. I have to admit with no poster immediately available and with none of us having any prior knowledge of what the film might be about, I had to initially go my stars in deciding it it was worth seeing.

Of course it's hard to simply ignore the unusual collaboration of Dennis Quaid, Sarah Jessica Parker, Ellen Page and (of all people) Thomas Haden Church. We entered the theater thinking it was a comedy.

That notion lasted only as long as the trailers did - then I saw the Miramax logo.

Smart People might best be termed as an art film of sorts. It certainly has all the diverse elements of one and the actors involved have certainly had their fair share of strong dramas and slightly left field projects. It had an interesting soundtrack (but no where near as fun as Juno's) and it certainly had an uncommon story driving the whole thing.

The story follows the intellectually brilliant family of Professor Lawrence Wetherhold (Quaid) as composed of his aloof college son James (Ashton Holmes), his scarily driven young Republican daughter Vanessa (Page) and the odd ball in the family, his inept adopted brother Chuck (Church). Lawrence is known to be self-centered and highly disconnected from the people around him, mainly by choice and the sheer nature of his personality. Things begin to become interesting when his adopted brother comes into town and Lawrence finds himself vying for the affections of Dr. Janet Hartigan (Parker), who just happens to be one of his former students who used to foster a school girl crush on him. Small world indeed.

In some ways the story seems trite, but it came out surprisingly well in the long run. The humor was subtle and rather dry, which was a more than welcome relief from the usual gross-out, slapstick humor that tends to dominate today's movie industry. Of course given the more dramatic nature of the film, even the jokes and running gags at time felt more like very deliberate plot devices geared towards communicating another message apart from what lines are actually spoken aloud.

At the same time, the movie has its slow points and not even the witty delivery of the likes of Page are able to keep the momentum up. There's a point in the middle when the characters seem to get a little too lost in their own troubles that it doesn't seem to help the movie get anywhere significant.

Still, overall it was an enjoyable piece with its own message to deliver in a rather uncommon fashion. While I'm not exactly a big fan of his previous films, I have to admit that Church was an excellent casting choice as Chuck. He didn't make his antics the main attraction (or distraction) of the film and ensured things continued to push through. His performance was pretty good and actually did factor in significantly to the overall success of the project.

Sarah Jessica Parker was a bit so-so here and didn't really feel that important a character, mainly because of her performance. Page certainly tried her best and put up a good performance, although at times she still felt like the girl in Juno, albeit with weaker writers behind her and no interesting exchanges of significant import with other characters. She's on her way to becoming very good actress, but then this film didn't come out as a good medium for presenting her skills.

It's still a movie worth watching - not your run-of-the-mill entertainment offering, At the same time, I'm sure there are those who enjoy all parts of it and are bound to get bored or will nod off in the cool confines of the theater.

This review originally appeared on The Geeky Guide to Nearly Everything. For more related content, feel free to visit the site directly!

---

The works of Jane Austin have become classics for readers around the world and they've made their way into film in various forms. Her book Pride and Prejudice (2005) alone has been turned into several different films, the latest being in 2005. This version of Pride & Prejudice was a particularly good one and despite the many others I've managed to see, I have to admit that I like this one the best so far.

I think I have good reason. I usually do, right? I am a Geek after all.

Pride and Prejudice is that classic Jane Austin tale of the Bennet sisters set in those classic Georgian times when marrying off your daughters was a very important thing indeed. Of course each sister is fairly different from the other and seeing how each progresses in their various matches of varying degrees of "quality" - and not to mention the aloof Mr. Darcy - is entertaining in itself.

Of course there's little to be said about the story itself since the source material is pretty solid. Jane Austin books are known for their wit and humor while still delivering a pretty strong message when needed. Credit goes to the filmmakers for retaining the overall tone of the book on film and finding actors (or creating some I suppose) who managed to bring the story to life as it should. It didn't feel like some stuffy period film but retained the same light vibrancy that the book had.

I just loved the cinematography - so many sequences were like set pieces, paintings in real-time that just get more and more vivid as the camera pans or shifts. I also liked how many parts of the film felt more like theater representations involving complex layering of characters, camera angles, doors and smatterings of dialog left and right. Case in point is the big party where you find yourself wandering through the party, getting to see what all the Bennets are up to and yet not necessarily sticking to any one solely. Oh, and don't get me started on the dances, but then I can be such a campy fag, I know.

Kiera Knightly was really good as Elizabeth, that much I'll admit. Knightly tends to be a little hit-or-miss for me since she has a fair share of great films that aren't that well known and so-so films that you really wish you never made the mistake of sitting through. This was a new genre for her in terms of it being a good movie that got a lot of attention, especially given it got several Oscar nominations, which were certainly warranted.

Both Donald Sutherland and Brenda Blenthyn were just amazingly well-cast as Mr. and Mrs. Bennet, which I think goes without saying. They were both wonderfully witty and funny without being too over-the-top, which becomes the risk with characters written in that manner.

I'm not quite sure how I feel about Matthew Macfadyen as Mr. Darcy. Sure, playing a rather cold and aloof character can be seemingly easy but then doing that and still showing his feelings in a meaningful manner is the really tricky part. He certainly had his moments in the film, I'll give him that. I just didn't feel he was overly consistent, but fairly good overall.

Oh, and in case you're one