Run Fatboy Run (2008)

The plot should be familiar to anyone who's watched more than a few romantic comedies: Shlubby loser (in this case, Simon Pegg) blows it with the perfect girl (Thandie Newton) and tries to woo her back before she winds up with Mr. Right (Hank Azaria) who is, secretly, a real ass.

I do wish they'd made Azaria's character a little less despicable. Wouldn't it be nice if the girl would, for once, simply choose the good-hearted loser based on love rather than being PUSHED back to him by a loathsome jerk? Eh, I guess then it'd just be predictable in a different way.

Nothing new here, but somehow manages to squeeze out some charm nonetheless.

B-

Mad Money (2008)

No, it's not a masterpiece, but it IS lots of fun. Just the thing after a headache-inducing day. I just sat back and let the silly wash over me.

B

The Ruins (2008)

OK -- I know that this is far from high praise -- but I didn't hate this movie and I truly expected to.

I'd read the book a couple years back and was sufficiently scared, if not blown away, by it. When I'd seen the previews for this film, I was immediately annoyed by a couple of big discrepancies: switching a huge storyline for one character (cutting relentlessly at his own flesh) to be the obsession of another character -- a female one at that. Also, the book takes place on a kind of hill -- not on an actual Mayan structure, as the movie did. The first and last acts particularly pale in comparison.

Still, on its own merits, the movie's not horrible. Don't think I'm saying it's any good, though. It's just a kind of B-movie, not bothering with the character development and internal fears that made the book so compelling.

C+

Coraline (2009)

I'd read the book and this, unnecessarily, mucked with it.

The movie's Coraline, voiced petulantly by Fanning, came off as a brat from the first scene and her parents were more crabby than the simply overworked/tired ones I'd met in the book. The worlds on both sides of the door had a real meanness making the whole shebang feel aggressive and hopeless. Surprisingly, the only thing I thought really deserved praise was the voice work by Teri Hatcher -- an actress I generally think of as lucky to have a career.

The movie does, indeed, look great, but that gets old pretty quick when not in service of a great story.

C-

Watchmen (2009)

Refused to drag, despite its length. I was engaged throughout and this, frankly, surprised me. I hadn't minded waiting for the DVD release because I was quite sure it wouldn't be my kind of movie!

I was especially impressed with the camera work during the fight scenes. It's become such common practice to have the lens whirling around as though it were attached to one of the combatants' fists that, although it's a pet peeve, it's one I've kind of resigned myself to enduring. I applaud the decision here to pull the camera outside of the action, making it possible to actually SEE the ballet of the fight.

Beautifully made film.

A-

What Just Happened (2008)

I was thinking after viewing this that though it reminded me of Wag the Dog (an "inside a political campaign" ridicuthon), this "inside Hollywood" version can't hold a candle to it. It seemed as if the idea was stolen from the first film and set in a different world but without the freshness the first outing had.

The funny thing is that I hadn't remembered Robert De Niro starred in Wag the Dog and I'd probably never known that Barry Levinson served as director. That they filled the same roles in this new film just furthers the "trying to capture past glory" theory. They didn't succeed.

C

Grey Gardens (2009)

I kept thinking to myself, honestly a tad surprised, that Drew Barrymore was doing a heckuva job in her role of Little Edie. I mean, seriously. Look:

Definitely not as good as the documentary of the same name, but it does fill in some gaps while making me wonder just how much of the "extra" stuff was factual.

B

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

This was a serious disappointment. The visuals were very muddy -- as though Hogwarts magicked away a third of its color and even more of its light -- and the story just felt like a link between two bigger movies rather than a story of its own.

Also, it did the viewers a great disservice by making the demand that we be familiar with both the books AND the earlier films. I don't think they ever called Professor McGonagall by name in the movie, which meant that it was necessary that we possess the visual knowledge, only available in the previous films, that Maggie Smith is McGonagall. While that was more annoying that a true mental feat since the role is so recognizable, the film also ridiculously expected us to remember the casting of minor roles. Ron referring to "Lavvy", especially in a British accent, confused me for quite some time. I'd read the book when it first came out (that's four years ago) and saw the last movie in theaters (about two years ago). I could not remember who Ron was dating in the book and they took their sweet time filling me in during the movie.

I felt incredibly frustrated due to these oversights -- they felt like a lack of respect. Basically, I'm a FAN and I was scratching my head over who was who every once in a while. Was I supposed to have studied before buying a ticket?

C

The Deal (2008)

Poor Meg Ryan. She's really quite lovable and has a really good sense of comic timing. I mean, if it hadn't been for that Crowe affair and the stupid lips, she might still be going strong.

This "let's see how much we can get away with" insider Hollywood fluff is throwaway fun. Meg's quite good here and William H. Macy is fantastic. Lots of little giggles in a movie that doesn't quite seem "finished."

B-

Up (2009)

That initial sequence, encompassing a lifetime of love, was so beautifully done that I almost wish the movie had ended there -- I was so affected that it was hard to pull myself together to watch the rest of the film.

Although the beginning is the "star," the rest of it is also quite winning. It lost a little bit of its charm once we caught up to the old explorer and his dogs, but it's still worth seeing. I'm not sure the 3-D feature (which is how we saw it) added much to the experience though.

Probably a solid "A" for the first half and a "B" for the second. I'll give it a...

B+

Two Lovers (2009)

Joaquin Phoenix plays a depressed man-child working at the dry cleaners his dad owns. With a broken engagement and two suicide attempts in his near past, I understand why his parents are treating him with kid gloves, but what I didn't get was why on earth the building's hot girl (Gwyneth Paltrow) and the down-to-earth daughter of his parents' friends, both gorgeous, seem to think he's worthwhile as a paramour.

I seriously didn't understand what Phoenix was doing here. He seemed to be dreary, slow-witted, and suffering from a speech impediment. When you consider that he's also calling his parents' cluttered apartment "home" -- I mean, how were women even bothering to speak to him?

A slog from start to finish -- I certainly hope he's joking about quitting the movie biz as this is a tragedy of a swan song.

C-