Love is a Many Splendored Thing (1955): I'd seen this one years ago but re-watched because a book in my supposedly-being-read stack (The Piano Teacher by Janice Y. K. Lee) reminded me of it in a the-movie-is-being-ripped-off way. I haven't finished the book but it is certainly following the movie's footsteps very closely in certain ways. Regardless, the movie is about a woman who is half Chinese, half British but who identifies as Asian who reluctantly falls in love with a married (sort-of) British news correspondent. Nothing much happens and it isn't that interesting.
White (1994): The second in the Three Colors trilogy. This one isn't terrible but it is (again) heavy handed with the color imagery. We follow a Polish man, Karol, as he deals with the fact that his wife (Julie Deply) has divorced him because of his impotence (both sexually and in life in general). Karol flees to Poland in an interesting way and sets about changing his life in equally interesting ways. I can't say too much and not give away the plot but I did like it better than Blue.
Red (1994): The last (and the best) of the Three Colors trilogy. This one centers on a model who forms a friendship with a questionable man after rescuing his dog. Still heavy handed with the color imagery, this one manages to be both subtle and interesting in terms of plot. It may be worth watching the other two to see this one (although they're not related really, so you could skip the other two).
The Rookie (2002): I thought I'd seen this but I'm not so sure. Anyway, it's a cute movie about baseball if you can look past Kevin Costner's "acting."
Ice Age: The Meltdown (2006): Cute but seemingly driven by video game development.
Night at the Museum (2006): About what I'd expected: cute and fun, just don't ask too many questions.
I Could Never Be Your Woman (2007): Paul Rudd's dancing is worth it. Having to deal with a script in serious need of editing, eh. What could have been a fluffy rom com has been made into what tries very hard to be a commentary on nature v. nurture complete with a Mother Nature character who can only be seen by Michelle Pfieffer. Ick.
Doubt (2008): Brilliant. Everyone acts beautifully. The movie is beautifully shot. The script is tight and manages to consider both sides of the story without picking one (and without seeming wishy washy for not picking one) while making sure that whatever side you've chosen is riddled with doubt.
The Professor and the Housekeeper by Yoko Ogawa (2003 Japan, English Translation 2009): I don't know what I read that recommended this one but I should have known better the minute I picked up the book. Right there on the pretty blue with cherry blossoms cover is a blurb by Paul Auster. While it is better than anything Auster could produce, it lacks a lot. The book is about a housekeeper who starts work for a retired math professor who, because of a car accident, has a 90 minute short-term memory. The story is almost touching because the housekeeper forms a friendship with a man to whom she has to re-introduce herself every morning (or when she returns after errands if she's been gone more than 90 minutes). And her 12 year old son also forms a friendship with the professor. But, and it's a huge but, the story becomes increasingly more concerned with showing off that the author understands the math and the baseball (introduced by the son) so the friendship becomes overshadowed by the author (remind anyone of Auster?).
Bull Durham (1988): I've seen this one a bazillion times before but always love being reminded that they used the bar in which I spent quite a bit of my MA.
Public Enemies (2009): Yeah, it's not the best Johnny movie. Yeah, it's not the best gangster movie. But I think it's a good movie. I liked the subtlety of it and the look of it and the balance between shoot-em-up and love story.
Soylent Green (1973): Jesus. The late 60s/early 70s were bizarre. This was interesting to watch, I guess, but it lacks a lot in terms of character development, plot development, etc.
Brideshead Revisited (2008): Eh. Watch the mini-series instead. I haven't read the book but I do know that the mini-series remained fairly faithful--this was very different in some regards and almost a direct re-film of the mini in serious ways.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009): I like these movies well enough (ok, so I sort of hated the last one in a serious way but really liked the really dark one, whichever one that was--so that evens out to well enough) but I think the viewer who has not read the books is missing out on a lot. Like the kid in class who is a little confused during discussion because he/she only read the cliff notes, the non-reader viewer is left out in the cold with plot and character development. For example, while I've been told and I assumed Harry and Dumbledore had been on other adventures and this was the reason behind their closeness, the movie did not tell me that. I think, basically, the movies don't stand on their own in most cases and it's only getting worse as they film the longer books. I also think the sequel aspect of the films is getting in the way of each individual film. A lot of time is spent at the end of each one to set up the next instead of wrapping up the current one. Threads are left loose and the non-reader viewer is left ambivalent.
