I was a little apprehensive about this one, both because of an inherent distrust of popularity and because I'd gotten a somewhat bad review from a friend, but I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. The first two parts of the novel were witty and fun—somewhat like what I imagine a Jane Austen novel would be if I had ever been able to laugh at a Jane Austen novel. (Mind you, I haven't read any Austen since high school—maybe I'd like her work better if I revisited it today.) The third part was darker but no less engaging. I think it's quite an accomplishment that Clarke was able to write a novel in over a thousand pages that never felt slow or boring to me. In fairness, though, I must admit the possibility of some bias—since I first started the Hornblower series I've been becoming more and more enamored of fiction set in Napoleonic-era England.

Started: 2007-06-18 | Finished: 2007-07-11

Purchase from Amazon

In my review of the last installment of this series I found myself hoping that the next one would be better. Now that it's here, I find myself both relieved and disappointed. I did think that this one was better than the previous one but it still left something to be desired. The problem is that, for the most part, I'm not sure what it really could have done better. The whole thing seemed very rushed to me and, of course, a lot of the book was left out. But that's simply unavoidable when adapting such a long book for the screen. I still didn't like Michael Gambon as Dumbledore but, in fairness, I think he also improved. The performances in general were pretty good, and Imelda Staunton in particular stood out as the odious Dolores Umbridge. Really, I think that the problem was more with me than the movie—having read the book and seen the more complete story there was probably little chance of my being satisfied with the film. I think that's probably borne out by the observation that nearly everyone I know who saw the film without having first read the book liked it.

Viewed: 2007-07-12 | Released: 2007-07-10 | Score: B+

IMDb Page

That's right, I just gave four stars to a Michael Bay film about giant, transforming robots based on an 80's toy line. The fact that I also own and love the 1986 animated movie should tell you a bit about the place Transformers held in my childhood esteem. Still, it wasn't just nostalgia that made me love this movie. OK, yes, that was a big part of it. I had very little hope that this movie wouldn't make the kinds of changes that invariably piss me off but, on the contrary, I was impressed by how respectfully the source material was treated. (And, really, the cartoon wasn't exactly Shakespeare—treating it as reverentially as people, including me, do is more than a little silly.) I particularly loved that Peter Cullen, the original voice of Optimus Prime, was brought back to reprise his role. But apart from merely appealing to my inner 7-year-old, there was plenty to appreciate as an adult. It goes without saying that the special effects and action scenes were top notch. The acting, though, was also quite good. Shia LaBeouf has a real talent for comedy, I think. What was even more surprising is how good the robots themselves were. Between the excellent voice acting and animation, the Transformers really did come to life for me, managing to make me both laugh out loud and get choked up. (OK, so I'm a little ridiculous. I can deal with that.) Of course, the film wasn't without its flaws. More than once I found myself rolling my eyes at some of the human technology in the film. (Giant, sentient, shape-changing robots? Yeah, of course that's fine. Connecting a 40's-era radio to a modern desktop PC in under five minutes with no schematics or specialized equipment? I can't roll my eyes hard enough.) And then there was the fact that, as usual, the producers picked a very pretty girl with absolutely no acting ability as the female lead. Still, at the end of the day it's an action movie—we can forgive it a few mistakes as long as the rest is suitably awesome. And it was.

Viewed: 2007-07-07 | Released: 2007-07-02 | Score: A

IMDb Page

I think that what I love about Jeffrey Eugenides is the way he can so perfectly evoke the feeling of being a young person. My own childhood was rural instead of suburban, but there's a certain feeling to youth that I think must be universal, and Eugenides really knows how to capture that feeling. He did it in Middlesex and he did it in this book. What's different about this one, though, is that the narrator remains faceless. Despite that, or maybe because of it, we get a very good sense of the narrator—the story is told in such a personal way that you get the feeling that you're being told a story by a real adult looking back on real events from his past. I connected very strongly with the story, which of course made it all the more depressing in the end. In that respect it was perhaps not the best book for my current frame of mind, but it was nonetheless a beautiful, haunting story.

Started: 2007-06-04 | Finished: 2007-06-17

Purchase from Amazon

There's not really much I can say to really flesh out a review for this one, because it's essentially the same movie as the previous two. At that, though, I do have to say that it was pretty good—certainly better than the second one although still not quite as good as the first. Like the second film, the heist portion of Ocean's 13 wasn't particularly captivating but, fortunately, this one did a much better job with the comedy. By now the characters have become familiar and while their relationships more or less repeat the same patterns from the previous films, this time around it feels comfortable instead of stale.

Viewed: 2007-06-08 | Released: 2007-06-07 | Score: B

IMDb Page

I think I'd say that I liked this book more than I enjoyed it. I found the characters and their relationships intriguing and I loved the descriptions of the working-class towns in the English Midlands of the 1900's. Still, the prose style made things kind of difficult for me—I had a particularly hard time keeping up with the changes in perspective and the passage of time. All in all, though, I can see why this is the sort of book that is so often taught in lit classes and I'm glad I read it.

Started: 2007-03-26 | Finished: 2007-06-03

Purchase from Amazon

I think I like Judd Apatow's movie sensibilities. I was realizing as I sat down to write this review that a lot of the things I liked about Knocked Up were also things I liked about his previous film, The 40 Year Old Virgin. Both films somehow managed to combine raunchy humor with genuine emotion in a way that, miraculously, works very well. I was laughing really hard for a lot of the movie and yet I still found myself really caring about the relationship between the two main characters. I liked pretty much the entire cast. The closest I came to having a complaint was with Katherine Heigl, and that wasn't so much because she was miscast or did a bad job as just that I found it the slightest bit jarring to see her in this kind of movie when I'm so used to seeing her in Grey's Anatomy. The one warning I'd put out there is that there are a few shock scenes that are about as gratuitous as anything I've ever seen in a comedy, so just be aware that you might see a few things you'd rather not. Still, if you liked The 40 Year Old Virgin, you'll like this one.

Viewed: 2007-05-31 | Released: 2007-05-31 | Score: A

IMDb Page

I don't think that Waitress quite deserves all the hype it's been getting but it is a very cute film. Afterwards, I commented to Juliette that the supporting characters were mostly written as one-dimensional and kind of over the top, almost as archetypes instead of characters. We had Cheryl Hines as the sassy friend and Adrienne Shelly as the insecure friend, Andy Griffith as the crusty old man who turns out to have a good heart, Lew Temple as the grouchy boss who turns out to have a good heart, Nathan Fillion as the sweet but bumbling new guy in town, Eddie Jemison as the plucky nerd who wants the insecure friend, and Jeremy Sisto as the evil, selfish husband. On reflection, though, I think it actually works OK for the movie's tone and style of humor. I was actually a little confused by my reaction to Nathan Fillion's character, who I found endearing despite the fact that I had some serious moral reservations about his main plot actions. I guess that means he did a good job in his performance. Juliette's only complaint was that she wished a bit for a different ending. I think that the ending she wanted—which, probably, is the ending most people will want—would have been more of a feel-good ending, but we both agreed that the movie as written made its point better. Anyway, if you're looking for a nice, cute movie to take a date to, you might want to check this one out.

Viewed: 2007-05-17 | Released: 2007-05-24 | Score: B-

IMDb Page

I was so tempted to give this one zero stars. I almost did, but I decided to give it a sympathy star only because of one particularly awesome cameo. But, seriously, this is not a good movie. Both Juliette and I were really bored the whole time—she fell asleep several times, only waking up because of loud cannon fire or some such. I had been hoping that At World's End would do better than the second movie but, if anything, it was worse. The script was just all over the place. It almost seemed like it was written by a roomful of overeager kindergarteners who were playing the game where everybody takes turns writing one sentence and then passing it on to the next kid. What's more, they didn't even really try to write any new jokes, they just kept reusing the same schtick from the first movie. I can't speak for anyone else but I'm over it by now. The worst part is that the end of the movie gives a really obvious lead-in to another sequel. Thankfully, that last part is mitigated by the fact that this movie was so bad that there's simply no way I'll see a fourth one. (Yes, I do see the irony here.) I figure that a lot of you are like me and will have to see this one just to finish things off after the cliffhanger at the end of Dead Man's Chest, but just be aware that this movie sucks.

Viewed: 2007-05-25 | Released: 2007-05-24 | Score: D-

IMDb Page

For being a sequel to a sequel, it wasn't bad. Still, that's not setting the bar very high. The main problem, as has been noted by plenty of other people, was that the writers tried to pack too much into one movie. There were simply too many villains. A movie based around any one of the bad guys could have worked well—each had enough pathos to make a deeper exploration possible—but, as it was, the script felt very rushed. I also felt that the silly parts of the movie went over the top. I was rolling my eyes instead of chuckling. On that one, though, I was certainly in the minority in the audience at the showing I saw.

Viewed: 2007-05-04 | Released: 2007-05-03 | Score: C+

IMDb Page