What movie have you seen lately?

Dogsitting which means a lot of movies:

Memento, Up, Working Girl, HP: HBP, Romy and Michelle's High School Reunion, The Women, Snow Falling on Cedars (excellent movie about Japanese-American relationships in a small Washington town post WWII), The Invention of Lying.
I'm here the rest of today and tonight as well so I'll probably also watch I Am Sam and Last of the Mohicans and maybe Tommy Boy if I get around to them.

Saw Persepolis last night, which was a really beautiful movie, but of course not as good as the book. I'd still recommend it though.

Scott Pilgrim vs the World. Best movie I have seen in a really long time. Go out and see it. One and all!

Diary of a Wimpy Kid

Good, cute
Now, The Boy in the Striped Pajamas.
Sad

Next up, Four Christmases

Eat Pray Love---visually beautiful, but too long with a heroine who drove you nuts.

Karate Kid- It was fun, but there were a lot of subtitles which made it difficult for a five year old to stay engaged. Also, it was a bit long.

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World

If you lived any amount of childhood in the 80's(and possibly early 90's) you'll like this movie. For all it's homages to that era though, the story is absolutely gripping. Fresh. New. And Fun. The way the characters act and react to one another is priceless. It's just a world you can get lost in...unlike

The Expendables

What an utter waste. I really wish that someone had bothered to tell Sly that even with all the best stars of 80's action, you still need a believable and reliable story to propel your movie from being nothing more than Cinema Splenda. The action was great and sweet, but there was very little substance to any one of the characters involved, and the premise begs for you to care about the characters...I mean...these are the Expendables....the guys that no one cares about if they die doing whatever they're being paid to do...and ultimately, sadly, this is just an expendable movie. It's a shame.

The Switch-actually way better than I thought it would be. Loved Jason Bateman. Only sort of liked Jen Anniston.

The Book of Eli. Not as profound as it tried to be, but very good.

Bill Simmons of ESPN.com on Jen Aniston:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


"Why can't Jennifer Aniston find a man?"

On the surface, this has nothing to do with sports. Just bear with me. Aniston became an A-list star thanks to "Friends." When the show folded in 2004, unlike everyone else on the cast, she managed to remain an A-List star despite making the following movies.

"Along Came Polly" (2004): Atrocious.

"Derailed" (2005): Especially painful because Aniston tried to be sexy and mysterious in it.

"Rumor Has It" (2005): Even my wife hasn't seen this one.

"Friends With Money" (2006): Overrated indie film, but she's good in it.

"The Break-Up" (2006): Did well because Vince Vaughn was red-hot at the time. Watchable once. Unwatchable a second time. Gets points for using Chicago nicely.

[+] EnlargeJennifer Aniston
James Devaney/Wire ImageMaybe it's all part of Jennifer Aniston's master plan to remain single.

"Management" (2008): Was this even released?

"Marley & Me" (2008): Her biggest triumph. Although they could have made this movie with Betty White playing Owen Wilson's wife and it still would have made $100 million.

"He's Just Not That Into You" (2009): My wife's review: "This was an affront to all women."

"Love Happens" (2009): Bombed. By the way, one of the five worst titles ever.

"The Bounty Hunter" (2010): More carnage.

"The Switch" (2010): Released today, although it looks so impossibly bad that "Arrested Development" fans are thinking about rioting outside Jason Bateman's house.

That's seven years, 11 movies, eight clunkers, one above-average (for her) performance and only two solid box-office successes. Two for 11? Certainly nothing to put her on par with Sandra Bullock, Julia Roberts or Reese Witherspoon. The other "Friends" stars faded into B- and C-list obscurity (or in Matt LeBlanc's case, F-list), so why didn't she?

The short answer: Because of the Angelina/Brad/Jennifer love triangle, which is like Brett Favre's comeback/retirement/comeback routine multiplied by 10, but has been cruising along for twice as long. The saga evolved in various forms: the betrayal itself; the aftermath, when Aniston licked her wounds as "Brangelina" took off; her futile search for a bounce-back boyfriend; the Brangelina clan expanding; everyone feeling worse and worse for Aniston, with her finally admitting that she was still bummed out; the Brangelina clan expanding again; Aniston's weird dalliance with the much younger John Mayer, which ended when he talked out of school about her; the Brangelina clan expanding again; Aniston approaching her 40th birthday and wanting a baby; the Brangelina clan producing twins; Aniston hitting 40 with no baby or husband; Aniston passing 40 with no baby or husband; and now we're here.

People can't get enough of this stuff. Us Weekly throws Aniston on its cover every few weeks -- and if they can work Angelina into the split-cover, even better -- just because Aniston resonates with women like no other celebrity. No matter how wealthy or famous or good-looking she is, the nuts and bolts of Aniston's "tragic" story could have happened to anyone: She lost her scummy husband to a seductive co-worker. Maybe it was the worst thing that ever happened to her personally, but professionally? Godsend. She became America's adorable little victim for seven years until Bullock finally pushed her aside. People don't read Us Weekly to see pictures of happily married couples. They read for drama. Tragedy. Betrayal. Acrimony. They read to see someone's life spinning out of control, or to compare two people wearing the same dress, or to see someone taking out the garbage who's "just like us."

Aniston's life resonates with that demographic better than anyone. Now she's 41, still hunting for a man, her ovaries rumbling like Earl Campbell, but we're all a little confused because … I mean, how could Jennifer Aniston, of all people, not find a man? How could someone that attractive need a friend to set her up on dates? What the hell is going on here? Is she secretly super-annoying? Is she terrible in bed? Does she have bad breath or bad hygiene? Are her standards simply too high? Does she still pine for Pitt and any potential mate can sense it?

You're not going to believe this, but I have a theory …

I think it's all a farce. I think she gravitates toward guys who could never be a potential husband (seriously, John Mayer?) and FWBs (friends with benefits) over actually finding herself the right match. And here's why: The longer this drags on, the longer she stays on the A list. Staying single, ending up with the wrong guys, pining for a baby but never having one … career move, career move, career move. Keeps her on magazine covers. Keeps people saying "I feel bad for Aniston, Brangelina really screwed her over; her life's never been the same." Keeps a built-in publicity buzz for every crappy movie she promotes. Really, it's genius.

Swinging this around to sports (and thank God, you were getting nervous): The Aniston dynamic resembles a great athlete who couldn't win a ring in his prime, but now time is running out and he only has a couple more chances. In sports, we love when this happens! I don't remember the intimate details of Joe Montana's last few seasons (or Isiah Thomas, Scottie Pippen, Keith Hernandez, whomever), but I remember everything about Karl Malone's last few seasons. And Barkley. And Elway. And Marino. And Elgin Baylor. And Ray Bourque. And Gary Payton. And now, LaDainian Tomlinson and Steve Nash. The last stage of their careers became compelling simply because they wanted a ring and we wanted them to win one.

Aniston transferred that same dynamic to the Hollywood world. Say she remarried in 2006 to one of those Rande Gerber-type rich guys who owns cool bars that are in hip hotels. And let's say they had a kid in 2008. And another one this year. By 2010, would anyone care about Jennifer Aniston? NO!!!!!!!! Only if she was making good movies. Which, obviously, she doesn't want to do. She's happy being a likable celebrity with decent comic timing who plays herself in every movie (with only her hairstyle and co-star changing). I think that's intentional, too. She could have taken more acting chances -- remember how good she was in "Office Space," or as the sexually frustrated wife in "She's The One" -- but seems much more interested in protecting her brand. You can't differentiate between Aniston when she's being interviewed, acting in a movie or staring at you on a magazine cover anymore. It's all the same. That's the way she wants it.

I say she's much smarter than we think. Unlike with sports, she knows it's better for her career if she never gets that ring. She will continue dating co-stars, bad-boy musicians and people with lousy hair for the foreseeable future. You watch. So feel sorry for Steve Nash, but don't feel sorry for Jennifer Aniston. She's laughing all the way to the bank.

I think that's an unfair article....would you be willing to jump into another marriage after your husband very publicly cheated on you. Also, I really liked love happens. And did he really just critique a movie he hasn't seen on what it looks like?

I really don't listen to many people's opinions about movies because they are usually wrong for me, it shows in this article because I've enjoyed everything I've seen Aniston in, I won't watch Marley in me, I can't explain that one, but just hearing about the movie angers me. lol. Somethings just can't be explained. lol.

I have to be honest: I have seen maybe 3 Aniston movies. Marley, Office Space, and Along Comes Polly. I think she has something, and that is why she keeps getting put into movies. I think Simmons' point is partially correct: she makes some stinkers for movies. But then again, so do a lot of people who are A-listers.

I make no judgment on the stuff about her motives for marriage or not. I will say I am disturbed by her recent comments about not needing a dad to raise a kid. But she's probably saying that to support her new movie, which is about a woman who wants a kid but not a husband. So who knows what she really things about that.

Simmons is an excellent writer when it comes to sport and lots of pop culture. One can be a good writer and still be wrong. He's probably out of line here and i probably should have thought about it more carefully before posting.

For the record, I have said this before but it bears repeating. Marley is an excellent movie. Really a lot more substance there than you can tell from the trailers. It's not about the dog; it's about marriage and commitment; and it portrays marriage as it really is; hard at times. even the most living marriages have conflicts, and you can fight with your spouse without there being any danger of not loving them anymore. That's what that movie is about. It does feature a dog, just long enough to have some funny parts to throw into the trailers in order to sell the movie. But the dog is just one more part of the marriage which also has its ups and downs. To me, the 5 minutes you see about the death of the dog is more than made up for by the other 95 or so minutes of the story. But that's just me.

When in Rome- cuter than I expected and I laughed out loud quite a bit. But it was predictable, which wasn't surprising.

Dear John- It's a Nicholas Sparks movie, and I'm just not a fan of his. Although it was refreshing that there was no extra-marital affairs in this movie, which was shocking to me because every other movie of his I've seen has them.

(500) Days of Summer- Seen this one before, loved it just as much this time around.

Watching Date Night tonight when Pete gets off work, I'm excited, I love Tina Fey

Date night was hilarious. It was a good movie. I'm not always such a big Carell fan, but he did a fantastic job with this one, and Tina Fey was as great as ever.

It was so hilarious

Oh, I also watched Step Up 3-D, which made me think of Melissa and Dave's old war of who loved movies about dancing/cheerleading the most

Hmmm, I seem to remember something about that, but I am not sure... Maybe dave can clarify.

meether369 wrote:Hmmm, I seem to remember something about that, but I am not sure... Maybe dave can clarify.

I have a vague recollection. I've mostly tried to forget everything possible about that movie. But it's hard. When you witness something that awful, it tends to stay with you.

In that vein, I saw a movie the other night on tv that I think may actually be worse than stick-it. Not sure what the title is, but it had Lindsay Lohan in it. She was a girl in HS, and was obsessed with some famous rock star or something. She was also the lead in a musical being performed at her school. God, it was bad.

I KNEW you loved it more than I did!!! I couldn't even remember the name!!

meether369 wrote:I KNEW you loved it more than I did!!! I couldn't even remember the name!!

That doesn't mean that I loved it more - it just means that I'm smarter and have a better memory than you.

Oh, and that awful Lohan movie is called "Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen" ( [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ) and it is remarkably bad.

I liked that movie....but I do tend to like stupid movies...I do like intelligent movies, as well.

I took the kids to see Ramona and Beezus....it was great. We all liked it, but their cat dies in the movies, so on the way home I asked the kids what their favorite part of the movie was, and Piri bursts into tears and says, "I liked the parts where the kitty was alive."

It was sad, she is a sensitive little girl, despite the fact that she is a major brat.

dave wrote:

meether369 wrote:I KNEW you loved it more than I did!!! I couldn't even remember the name!!

That doesn't mean that I loved it more - it just means that I'm smarter and have a better memory than you. ;)

Oh, and that awful Lohan movie is called "Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen" ( [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ) and it is remarkably bad.

Kinda hard to believe you or see your point when you're, in the same thread, admitting to watching a movie with Drama Queen in the title that also boasts Lindsay Lohan as part of its cast...

Angie wrote:I liked that movie....but I do tend to like stupid movies...I do like intelligent movies, as well.

I took the kids to see Ramona and Beezus....it was great. We all liked it, but their cat dies in the movies, so on the way home I asked the kids what their favorite part of the movie was, and Piri bursts into tears and says, "I liked the parts where the kitty was alive."

It was sad, she is a sensitive little girl, despite the fact that she is a major brat.

Glad I haven't seen it and for this warning.

Poor Piri. I totally understand her. Even the brat part sometimes. :o

well, actually Melissa the cat dying is a very small part of the movie, and you never see anything, just that it is one more of those things Ramona has to deal with in growing up, and it is something that brings her closer with Beezus. It is such a cute movie.

meether369 wrote:

dave wrote:

meether369 wrote:I KNEW you loved it more than I did!!! I couldn't even remember the name!!

That doesn't mean that I loved it more - it just means that I'm smarter and have a better memory than you.

Oh, and that awful Lohan movie is called "Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen" ( [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ) and it is remarkably bad.

Kinda hard to believe you or see your point when you're, in the same thread, admitting to watching a movie with Drama Queen in the title that also boasts Lindsay Lohan as part of its cast...

I was.....uhh.......doing research. Yeah, that's it! For a.........uh........sociological project I'm working on.....yeah, that's the ticket!