Hotel Rwanda (2004)

Premise: Paul Rusesabagina (Don Cheadle) is the house manager at the Hotel des Milles Collines in Kigali in 1994. His wife, Tatiania (Sophie Okonedo), is Tutsi, while Paul is Hutu. After the assassination of the Hutu Prime Minister, the Hutus begin a massacre of the Tutsis, whom they believe is responsible. Paul transforms the Milles Collines into a refugee camp, using whatever political savvy he has to protect as many as he can while clinging to the hope that the UN, represented by American Colonel Oliver (Nick Nolte), will rescue them.

Yet another example of how everything can come together so perfectly in one film.

Cheadle gave one of the most reserved and understated performances I have seen in a long time. It wasn't even a performance. He simply was. Paul had only low level politico skills to defend himself and his loved ones, and his struggle to keep everyone alive in such extraordinary circumstances was nothing short of heartbreaking.

Okonedo provided a perfect balance to Paul, and she too seemed as though she wasn't performing at all. Everything that Tatiania did and said seemed so natural, so real.

Apparently Nick Nolte's character is only loosely based on Roméo Dallaire, and he really did care, so I'll not be upset over this one. I just don't like Nolte, though. He kind of gives me the creeps.

Oh, alright, I'll say it: Joaquin Phoenix sports a wicked beard and makes an excellent point.

Congratulations to Terry George! He helmed and co-wrote this project with brilliant simplicity. There were only a few parts of the film where I felt I was watching (I'm gonna say it) a genocide movie. Other than that, the bare bones story was told with more heart than most things I've see all year.

As much as I'm a crier in movies, I could barely cry in this one. My chin did that shakey thing that it sometimes does, and I mostly felt like I was doing the very wrong thing by crying. I felt like the Rwandans didn't want or need my tears. They needed my help, all of our help, and we completely ignored them.

You could argue that I was ten and probably couldn't have done that much personally, but I wouldn't let you get that far. We're letting the same thing happen all over again in the Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Why won't we stop it this time, knowing what we know now?

Why such a outpouring of love and aid for tsunami victims? Sure, they need our help, and it's great that we give it. But why are we willing to let so many other people die?

I was at a lunch a few weeks back where this question came up. The only answer I could come up with was culpability. Tsunamis are no one's fault. Genocides are. It's a simple as that. You think we'd like fighting an enemy we could see and maybe even beat after all this time, but I guess not.

Are we too afraid?

For this opus: A+. Humanity might be getting a failing grade, though.

On a more light hearted note: April got 4/5 last night! Or 5/6, depending on how you look at it. Probably beginner's luck.

Oscar Round-Up (2005)

April lays odds on the Academy Awards!

Okay, not really. I realize that there's something to laying odds, and I don't know what it is, so my odds would automatically be wrong. I am, however, going to lay out some predictions and preferences and the like in case you were wondering what someone obsessed with movies was thinking about what some septuagenarians had to say about last year's motion pictures.

First off, let me remind you that while I do like the Academy Awards, and, while I do think that are some measure of merit, they absolutely do not represent the best movies of any given year. Most years, I am disappointed in the nominees. None the less, David Edlestein and I both like that they get people talking about movies, so I'm going to throw down about them anyway.

Or at least some of them.

And yes, it's true that I haven't seen all the movies, so maybe I shouldn't be judging. I think you know as well as I do, though, that seeing the movie isn't necessary when it comes to awards shows.

Performance by an actor in a leading role:

Nominees: Don Cheadle, Hotel Rwanda; Johnny Depp, Finding Neverland; Leonardo DiCaprio, The Aviator; Clint Eastwood, Million Dollar Baby; Jamie Foxx, Ray.

I love Cheadle. I really do. I think that all these nominations for Hotel Rwanda, though, represent old white men saying "Genocide? Yeah, that shit's bad" rather than their feelings about the film. They don't care about Cheadle's brilliantly understated performance. They just want to remove some latent guilt for the way the world sat back and did nothing.

I also love Depp and DiCaprio, but Depp wasn't anything special. I've seen him do stuff that required much more than this performance, and he got nothing for that work. He doesn't deserve the win here.

For DiCaprio, I think the Golden Globe combined with the nod is enough. He's mature enough to take the loss.

Eastwood was spectacular, but you shouldn't get an award just for finally crying.

Who will win: Foxx. Who should win: Paul Giamatti for Sideways, Jeff Bridges for The Door in the Floor, Jim Carrey for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

I can't always get what I want, can't I?

Performance by an actor in a supporting role:

Noms: Alan Alda, The Aviator; Thomas Hayden Church, Sideways; Jamie Foxx, Collateral; Morgan Freeman, Million Dollar Baby; Clive Owen, Closer.

Foxx was a lead in Collateral, but you cannot be nominated in the same category twice in the same year. He can't win twice, so that pretty much makes this nod moot.

Giving Church a nod but not Giamatti is just a slap in the face. Church was good but not good enough for the award.

Freeman's Scrap was good, but it will likely continue as a thankless role. It's not quite enough to push him out ahead of the rest of the pack.

Complete toss up between Alda and Owen. Both were equally fantastic in their deliciously villainous roles.

Who will win: Either Alda or Owen. Too close to call. Who should win: Can't you give the award to both of them?

Performance by an actress in a leading role:

Noms: Annette Bening, Being Julia; Catalina Sandino Moreno, Maria Full of Grace; Imelda Staunton, Vera Drake; Hilary Swank, Million Dollar Baby; Kate Winslet, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

It doesn't matter who else was nominated or how good they were - this is a return of 2000's grudge match between Swank and Bening. Bening's a tremendously talented actress while Swank is merely a product of the overall production, but she'll win out again.

Who will win: Swank. Who should win: Moot point.

Performance by an actress in a supporting role:

Noms: Cate Blanchett, The Aviator; Laura Linney, Kinsey; Virginia Madsen, Sideways; Sophie Okonedo, Hotel Rwanda; Natalie Portman, Closer.

Portman was chilly and winsome, but the Golden Globe's enough. She's too young for anything more.

Poor Linney. Changing your appearance pretty much guarantees the Best Actress award (e.g. Nicole Kidman's fake nose in The Hours, Charlize Theron's transformation for Monster) but not supporting actress. You will remain egregiously under-rated.

What I said about Cheadle goes for Okonedo.

Blanchett's embodiment of Katherine Hepburn is nothing short of a miracle, and I think the Academy liked the real thing enough to hand over the trophy. Plus the really should have just given her one back in '99 instead of the vapid and useless Gwyneth Paltrow

But Madsen's the real prize here. I would die to have enough one iota of what she gave up there on the screen. She was luminous.

Who will win: Blanchett. Who should win: Madsen, without a shadow of a doubt.

Best motion picture of the year

Noms: The Aviator, Finding Neverland, Million Dollar Baby, Ray, Sideways.

I find that these nods are always tied up with the director nods. If your movie is nominated, but you aren't, it means that your movie was good, but the Academy thinks you suck. If you are nominated, but your movie isn't, you are a talented filmmaker, but the movie doesn't represent your best work. As such Finding Neverland will never win.

I've resigned to the fact that the Academy hates Martin Scorcese. They never let him win! Just give him a freaking award already. Eastwood's going to win director, and with good reason, so The Aviator's out.

Million Dollar Baby is the front runner in this close race, and it was truly one of the best movies from last year. All three performers are truly inhabit their characters, and Eastwood's turned back to the kind of brilliant filmmaking that Academy probably misses. With good reason, again.

I haven't been able to bring myself around to Ray since I found out he co-author of his autobiography hated it so much. Sure, Ray got off the horse, but he made it through most days after that with copious amounts of Mary Jane and alcohol. He also still got divorced. And, unfortunately, he wasn't very successful during his lifetime. The movie just shouldn't win, and it likely won't.

Almost every critic on the planet this year agrees that Sideways is the best movie they've seen all year. They're right.

What will win: Million Dollar Baby. What should win: Sideways.

All in all, a very good year for movies.

Million Dollar Baby (2004)

Premise: Frankie Dunn (Clint Eastwood) is a trainer and gym owner. He's one of the best trainers in the biz, but he protects his fighters away from the title match. Scrap (Morgan Freeman), his long-suffering best friend and a former boxer himself, helps Frankie run the gym. Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank) shows up one day begging to be trained, and, while Frankie refuses (he doesn't train girls), Scrap sees something in her and sticks it out until Frankie comes around.

I really don't want to give too much away, but it's hard not to write one lengthy plot description for this one.

You know why? Because it's a plot driven movie. Even more than that, though, it's a character driven movie. Developing characters is the most important thing in Paul Haggis' screenplay. He never lets you down with any of them - never relying on clichés or plot contrivances to get you through. But what a plot it is. I'm very nervous about giving a single aspect of it away, and, as much as I'll try not to, I warn you now that something might slip.

Remember when I said that Eastwood should direct everything? I wasn't wrong. If anyone looks back to when the septuagenarian was on Rawhide or making spaghetti westerns, no one could say that they saw him coming. Yet here he is. Eastwood tells his stories simply, with beautifully framed shots and the best use of lighting I've seen in a really long time. He takes time to develop his characters, along with the brilliant screenplay, always pacing himself, always pacing his audience for the best natural reaction.

I think that's what he's really concerned with. In a movie about how unnatural boxing really is, Eastwood tells a story about the natural bonds that develop between different people without the faintest whiff of sexuality.

And his score. His elegant, bare bones score will be the death of me. There's this part in the beginning of the second act where an envelope goes in a box. There is no dialogue, and I was in absolute tears. Hot pricking tears, and, in my head I started saying, "I'm sorry, Clint Eastwood." I don't know why, except maybe because I knew he intended to break my heart, and I thought I could maybe apologize my way out of it.

If you don't already know the end of this movie, stay that way until you see it. I will tell you, though, that there's a single shot in the top of the third act with Scrap and Maggie, and I swear he gives it all away right then. Eastwood always struck me as one to breast his cards, but he allows you a tiny peek right at that moment. I tell you, I started to cry then, and I didn't stop until after the credits had rolled.

Of course, by then the hot stinging tears were gone and replaced by cooler ones than ran down my cheeks, and I refused to wipe away. At that point I felt resigned to my fate.

Somehow, magically, despite my crying, by the time I walked out of the movie theatre I had the biggest grin on my face, and nothing could take it away. I felt peaceful and driven and lifted. I don't know if God will speak to you through this film, but I think it's worth your money to find out. In fact, I think it's worth your money anyway.

Swank does her best impersonation of a great actress here. She's as plucky and quietly sad as the script requires but no more. I've yet to be sold on her as an actress (I could never bring myself to see Boys Don't Cry), but I know she's smart enough to make something worthwhile out of herself. Maggie was 31 when the movie started and much too old to be starting out as a fighter. I knew that Swank understood exactly how Maggie felt in that situation, and I believe she's the only actress who could bring that to the role.

Freeman serves as much as the movie's emotional core as he does as its narrator. It's astonishing to see how much he and Eastwood have aged since Unforgiven, but Freeman never stops giving. That's his true talent. And he's got a great voice for narration.

As an added bonus, my immense pleasure in seeing this film was doubled when Jay Baruchel appeared on screen. I love Baruchel! He should assuredly be in many more things, and I know he was dutifully pleased to be given this chance.

Another solid movie that is easily one of last year's best, and better, for going back to a kind of filmmaking long forgotten. A+

P.S. Rideau Famous Players had the gall to close the curtains before the credits stopped rolling and then turn them off before they were done. Annoyed.

Intermission (2003)

Sum: The various lives of none-too-pleasant people living in Dublin intersect in funny and violent ways.

I'd get into it, but basically speaking it was one of those movies where lots of different plot lines come together, and none of them in a particularly spectacular way. It's a good use of that genre, if you like to call it one as I do, but it doesn't provide any new insight into that we haven't already seen in, say, Magnolia.

I've waited for a few weeks now for the thoughts to come together on this one, and they're still not doing that. I think that's because there's nothing remarkable about this movie. It's enjoyable, and I won't come out against it. But it's nothing special, you know?

Director John Crowley has only one other movie under his belt, and writer Mark O'Rowe has nothing else. That's just as well. I laughed when things were funny, and I was dutifully horrified at horrifying times. There was nothing more to do.

Mostly I just kept thinking that Colin Farrell should stop punching women in the face, and that the TV guy was pretty darn cute. It's been so long, however, that I don't even remember his character's name. Or there was nothing memorable about it.

Oh, okay, I shouted "Yay! Kelly MacDonald!" because I have had an absolutely baseless love for her ever since Gosford Park. That was the most memorable bit, though.

Now, we all know that I find people from the UK far more hilarious that people from the US, so why didn't this movie work for me?

Because it was nothing short of average. Average is great if that's all your looking for, but sometimes you want something more. Something special. C

Constantine (2005)

Brief: John Constantine (Keanu Reeves) is a powerful psychic who fights demons in order to redeem his immortal soul since he knows he is doomed to hell. After her twin sister kills herself, Angela Dodson (Rachel Weisz) wants to know more about the dark forces at play, and her search leads her to Constantine.

Oh, who cares. If you really want to know, I suggest you read Hellblazer, the comic book on which this mediocre movie is based. For the love of peace, don't go see this movie.

Consider this April taking one for the team. As such, I feel no responsibility toward you for keeping any part of the movie's plot a secret.

It was a waste of my money and then some, and I only paid 6.95$. In fact, the most exciting part of the movie came before hand when Emily finally saw David Bowie's hand double and proved that I wasn't crazy. Serious, that was it right there.

Otherwise, classic example of how trailer people can make anything seem much more worthwhile than it really is.

Also a classic example of why music video directors (here Francis Lawrence) shouldn't be movie directors. Music videos are not mini-movies - they're acid trips mixed with speed pretending to be movies. I mean that in the nicest possible way. Music videos are great for music. I'm not sure I'd want them any other way.

But movies are another ball game, and it's a very difficult transition to make.

Luckily, Lawrence had embraced Lois's advice of always keeping everything moving, so I can vouch for it never getting boring. It didn't excite me, per se, but I wasn't bored.

I did forget what we were watching before the movie started and again in the middle somewhere. Bad sign.

The glorious Klaus Badelt scored this movie! (Along with Brian Tyler, but let's ignore him) I can now safely attribute anything good in this movie to him. Oh, Klaus.

Alyson Dee Moore, the foley artist, must have had a field day with this one. Despite the fact that Klaus is one of the best movie composers writing today, the movie went for one of those everything's-really-quiet-so-this-cigarette-lighter-is-now-the-loudest-thing-you've-ever-heard things. Cue loud cigarette smoking! Cue loud spatulas!

Despite the fact that he's quite adept with Shakespeare, Reeves is not an actor. He's a thin, tall man who can utter his lines with just enough confidence to convince you not to throw things at his head.

Of course, you just knew that Constantine had to be a bad ass. He called demons "asshole", and he SMOKED! As much as smoking is bad, and I can't understand why anyone would take up smoking knowing what we know now, smokers are not necessarily evil. It really is an addiction, folks.

Weisz is actually much better than this, so I'm not sure what she's doing here. Also, I'm not sure why a grown woman wouldn't know better than to wear a black bra under a white shirt, but that's another story.

Who knew Gavin Rossdale was British? Not me, that's for sure. I had to look it up to make sure he wasn't faking his accent. I remain unconvinced that an acting career is the way to establish yourself as something other than Gwen Stefani's husband, though.

Also, just in case you were wondering, angels and demons don't wear shoes. Bare feet abound. They do, however, get pedicures.

If I started in on Kevin Brodbin and Frank A. Cappello (co-writers) for the gaping holes in their story, I might never stop. Instead, I'm left wondering why Catholic dogma is always the source for these quasi-theological movies that never actually stop to consider the theological ramifications of what they are saying.

Not that Baptists, for example, have as much going in ritual department. It occasionally seems to me, a Protestant, that Catholics are obsessed with pain, and that can make for good movie fodder. Still, other religions have interesting stuff about them, but when was the last time you saw a reincarnation thriller?

Also, Heaven and Hell are right there behind what we see all the time? Hell is just this world but on fire and very windy? Why windy? And Heaven is very glowy?

And everyone wears their shoes under water? Am I the only person who doesn't like wet shoes?

For a movie that raises far more questions than it could ever possibly answer, it's not that bad. I've seen far, far worse (ahem, Alexander). It is, however, mediocre, and not worthy of your attention. C-

The United States of Leland (2003)

Summary: Although he can't remember it, Leland P. Fitzgerald (Ryan Gosling) is in a juvenile hall for killing another young boy, the brother of his ex-girlfriend, Becky (Jena Malone). Pearl Madison (Don Cheadle), his teacher there, smells a book in this quiet, asocial teen, and he visits with Leland's father, the great author Albert T. Fitzgerald (Kevin Spacey), to find it.

There are other plot lines about the family of the young boy, but I don't feel like writing about them.

Not recommended for those who have difficulty following plots that jump around in time.

Ryan Gosling, ladies and gentlemen. Ryan Frickin' Gosling. For those of us who watched Breaker High or, yes, it's true, Young Hercules, we so did not see this one coming. Not in the slightest. And then, poof, Murder by Numbers. At least that's how it was for me. He was magnetic and dangerous and unlike anything I expected of him.

And now . . . he's shaping up to be one of the best character actors of my generation. A complete transformation from last year's The Notebook to this movie, including physically. There he pulled off looking like a grown man, but here he possesses all the innocence and pain of a twelve year old. It was stunning. Leland came across as gentle and kind of apathetic, but the absolute torment he possessed is pricking my eyes with tears as I write this.

I like that Malone. She's sweet and trouble all at the same time. I'm a little worried that those are the only two characters she can play, but I'm going to wait until she's older to make that call. After all, the roles out there for teen girls are incredibly limited. Even more so than for teen boys, I would say.

Cheadle is something closer to a conduit than an actor. He's very reserved in his performances, and he makes his co-stars glow without reducing his own brilliance.

I only wish that Spacey could have shared some scenes with Gosling. I would have liked to see that. Nonetheless, this is the kind of character Spacey was born to play. A smarmy asshole who cares for naught but himself. Only he does care, maybe too much, and his desire to cut himself off from those feelings cuts deeper than he realized. Perhaps the true measure of this performer was that I got all that from about 20 mins on screen.

I'm going to go ahead and mention Chris Klein at this point. I have always thought very little of him and, while only one year older than Gosling, looks way too old to be playing a high school boy. But he wasn't awful here. I will say that.

For Matthew Ryan Hoge's (writer/director) second time out of the gate, it's not bad. It's actually very good but not quite as good as it thinks it is. I may have a different opinion about the level of pretention this movie possesses if I had watched it straight through, but I had some where I had to be.

Hoge has something there, though. He had a lot of high calibre actors here, but they wouldn't have come together the way they did if not for his direction. I'd like to see where he's going to go next. A-

Shaun of the Dead (2004)

Idea: Shaun (Simon Pegg) finally wakes up from his intense self-involvement to realize that he's lost his girlfriend, Liz (Kate Ashfield), has no relationship with his step father, Philip (Bill Nighy), or his mother, Barbara (Penelope Wilton), and lives with the biggest slacker known to man, Ed (Nick Frost). Of course, the day he realizes this is also the day he realizes his community is being attacked by flesh eating zombies, so he's got some other stuff to deal with as well.

Oh, man. I wanted to see this movie when it came out, but I'm not very good with gore. Zombie movies always have gore, even if they are terrific comedies with stellar ensemble casts, so I shyed away.

Don't make the same mistake! Gory and gross - yes. Hilarious - also yes. Good times were had by all.

Sure, Simon Pegg (yes, Shaun was the co-writer, which explains his fantastic character) and Edgar Wright's (writer and director - fancy that) set up was a year and a half long, but it was well worth it to see how completely oblivious Shaun could be to zombies. Honestly, you'd think that they all move so slowly that you couldn't miss them, but Shaun sure could. Endless comedy right there.

I was disappointed in myself, though, that I didn't recognize anyone but Nighy and Wilton. The cast was good and worked so well with each other and off each other that I know I've been missing out.

There's very little to comment on besides how funny it is. Of course, I don't think it was meant to be anything more than funny, and Wright carries it all off with a wonderful sense of "I don't care what you think."

I'm wondering how important that is in a director. You need that feeling to a certain extent but not too much, or you will alienate your audience. Now, I can think of some directors who might not care if the audience doesn't understand their "work", but it's their job to make something at least partially palatable, so they should just suck it up.

Which is what this is, despite watching bodies get ripped apart. Immensely palatable. B+

Twist (2003)

Plot: An updated version of Dickens' Oliver Twist, wherein Dodge (Nick Stahl) is the protagonist. And instead of being pickpockets, they're male prostitutes. I just thought I'd warn you now. In any case, Dodge meets Oliver (Joshua Close) and takes him to Fagin (Gary Farmer), who is kind of like their pimp. They have a super-pimp, Bill, who also pimps young ladies and owns the diner where they all congregate, which is run by his old lady, Nancy (Michèle-Barbara Pelletier).

That was really difficult to explain, man. It's not complex when you watch it, should you want to. I should have just stuck with the first two sentences, no?

I'll admit now that I'm not really a Dickens fan, and I did always think that Dodge was the more compelling character. As such, I can understand why Jacob Tierney (writer/director) chose that route.

Plus, he's got Stahl in the role. Despite some of his choices, he's a solid actor. What kills me, though, - and this might give something away - is that I thought his Canadian accent (for it is a Canadian movie set in Toronto) sound a lot like a certain French-Canadian young man that I know. Low and behold if his character doesn't turn out to be from Québec. That stuff can't be beat! If nothing else, you've gotta give an actor research. Also, I never doubted for a moment that what we learned about Dodge's background from Stahl's performance. He was every bit the haunted child forced to grow up much too soon.

Close was also good, although not as magnetic. He's young and fairly new, though, so I'll go as far as to say that he as promise. He didn't give me quite enough to figure out why Oliver would prostitute himself so quickly, though.

Farmer was your usual tough sweetheart, and Pelletier was lovable and sympathetic, although I don't know how she would have played Nancy not to be sympathetic.

I also like Tierney's decision to never show us Bill. It's hard to imagine who would have played such a demon. Tierney frames the movie well, although it is a bit heavy handed at times. I also got the feel of not independent, per se, but amateur. I don't mean that in an immature way; I mean that he's still finding his feet as a director, and I like that.

I waited for over a year for a chance to see this movie. Was it worth the wait? Not really. Especially since I really don't understand big brother David's point. If someone can explain it to me, I might go it for it. B

Sideways (2004)

Premise: Rather than a bachelor party, Miles (Paul Giamatti) takes his best friend Jack (Thomas Hayden Church) on a week touring through wine country. Jack finds himself a pour girl, Stephanie (Sandra Oh), and tries to get Miles to noticed that a waitress, Maya (Virginia Madsen), has a crush on him.

I have for some time now oscillated in my desire to see this movie. I want to, I'll wait for the DVD. I want, I'll wait for the DVD. Over and over again.

One day, however, I really wanted to see a movie, and I thought, "Why not see what American critics have almost unanimously declared the movie of the year?"

Why not indeed.

Of course, my wary desire for the movie reminds me a lot of Alexander Payne's (co-writer and director) protagonists. There's something about his leading men that's so accessible and off-putting. There usually likeable chaps in one way or another, but they are also unapologetic asses who keep everyone at arm's length - especially themselves. They do try to relate, at least when they want to, but they always fail because they can't connect with their own emotions.

And, of the three Payne movies I've see, Giamatti is the most natural fit for that kind of a character. I was reading TWoP the other day, and, in a small comment about the commercials, the recapper called him the "anti-Tom Hanks." I've been trying to figure that out ever since. I think it has to do with the way they both seem like the "every man" type, but Hanks is also good looking and charming and gets heaps of awards. Giamatti, on the other hand, is the real kind of every man - he's snarky and makes slightly less than funny jokes and isn't as good looking. There's something about him, though. I really felt like I knew Miles.

And when he gives that speech about the pinot grape - man - I wanted to hand over every award I could lay my hands on. My breath just caught in my chest at how painfully blind and poetic he is.

Here's the kicker - Payne and co-writer Jim Taylor gave Maya a speech that tops it to follow. That may all by Madsen's doing, but I had absolute tears in my eyes. It was so passionate and sexy and raw. Nothing was rushed or off in the delivery.

Where has she been hiding all these years? I have literally never seen anything else she's been in, and I've clearly been missing out.

Also, Oh is very hot. I just thought I'd mention it.

I don't have much to say about Church, except that he was the perfect foil for Miles/Giamatti, which I realize is saying a lot.

So was it the best movie of the year? Quite possibly. A+

13 Going on 30 (2004)

Plan: On her thirteenth birthday, Jenna faces the age-old movie question: She should stick it out with her bubble gum best friend, possibly to her socially detriment, or shuck any signs of a personality in favour of popularity? Tough one. So tough, in fact, that Jenna wishes that she were 30, so she could bipass the decision. Thanks to some wishing dust, she wakes up 17 years later to a prosperous life as a magazine editor in New York. She also gets to look like Jennifer Garner. In her freaked out state, she seeks out Matt (Mark Ruffalo), who is no longer her best friend. Jenna chose those cool kids, and now she has the chance to see the results of her juvenile reasoning.

How shocking is it that I deliberately chose this movie? Actually, considering the Ruffalo part, I suppose it's not. That, and I had no desire to see Shall We Dance, no matter what I think of Susan Sarandon.

In any case, I watched this movie not once, but twice, to confirm my feelings about it. I was 100% in the right mood for it the first time, so I thought it might just be a fluke. It wasn't.

This is downright one of the best girl movies I have ever seen. I got all uppity when it first came out, saying things to the commercials like, "Didn't they already do this with Big?" Yes, they did, but it's the same enough and different enough to really work.

I have also never thought that highly of Garner. I know, she's all big and awardy now, but I never really got into Alias, I never caught Significant Others when it was on, and all that Daredevil/Elektra fetishist crap turns my stomach. There was one thought, however, that struck me all the way through this movie - She's a star.

There's no denying it, no pretending it will go away. Garner's a star. She's sweet, charming, sensitive, and shy. I cared about Jenna. I believed Garner was a teen trapped in a grown up's body. I thought I was going to be annoyed by everyone dancing to thriller, but Garner made it kitchy and funny. It worked.

And while the chemistry wasn't quite there, I loved her with Ruffalo. Because it was a magical movie land, fat young Matt grew up to be a hottie with an un-ironic CBGB's t-shirt, and all the cool kids were big ol' losers whose lives ended right after graduation. Serious, Ruffalo has the kind of leading man qualities that you don't shake a stick at. He's been in some seriously questionable movies, and he always manages to rise above. I've had my eye on him and his sexy, serious, sarcastic, sweet routine since the three seconds he was in Ride with the Devil, and I'm so glad I'm no longer the only one.

While Josh Goldsmith and Cathy Yuspa's story couldn't have been more obvious, they had a refreshing take on the whole lost love thing. The two were the team behind What Women Want, another obvious and hilarious chick flick. It's great when you can take some old and still work it like they do. They don't make it new again, but how much do you really ask from girl movies anyway?

Although, one word to the not-so-wise: no one needs that long of a set-up. I get it - she's 13. I was 13 when I needed this much exposition. Actually, I was about 6, which is why you should cut it much, much shorter.

I credit the making it work, however, (and better than What Women Want) to director Gary Winick, who brought us 2002's under received Tadpole, which was a movie largely about Sigourney Weaver's sex appeal for males of all ages. Not kidding. And how Bebe Neuwirth should be in everything. It was also a great coming of age tale, and I do have a soft spot for those.

While I wouldn't go as far as Owen G (Entertainment Weekly) and proclaim this little gem one of 2004's 10 best, I would keep it on the list for a runner up. A-

The Stepford Wives (1975)

Brief: Walter Eberhart (Peter Masterson) moves his wife, Joanna (Katharine Ross), and his two kids out of the city and into the small quiet community of Stepford, Conneticut. Joanna has difficulty fitting in, but she makes friends with the equally outspoken Bobby Markowe (Paula Prentiss). As you may know, "something strange is happening in the town of Stepford." It's happening to the women, and it's only a matter of time before Joanna's next.

I was watching this sci-fi/mystery/thriller, and I thought that the MPAA should seriously rethink the PG rating. Or someone should seriously rethink the costume decision to have Ross never wear a bra.

I realize it's a small point that bears no relevance on anything of import in the movie, but it's so distracting! I saw Susan Sarandon talking to James Lipton once about why she didn't or doesn't or doesn't anymore (I'm not wholly familiar with her movie history) do topless scenes. She said that it doesn't matter what's going on or what an actor is saying because, at least for the first 15 seconds or so, everyone is staring at the nipple.

And it's true. Even when I willed myself to pay better attention to Ross's performance, I found myself sneaking a little peak like a greedy kid on Christmas Eve. For that reason alone I would have gone with PG-13.

Of course, the rampant and frank discussions of "christening every room in the house" or Bobby's admission that "it had to happen sometime" about losing her virginity also made me wonder. I don't think I'm a prude when it comes to film, but I knew when it first flashed "PG" across my screen that something just wasn't right.

Not that any of this is important. What is important is that Bryan Forbes (director) and William Goldman's (writer) adaptation of Ira Levin's dark warning of the very possible future is the movie I should have been watching back in May. I'm about to delve into something that you should already know if you know anything about either story, but I'll warning to stop reading now anyway.

So stop it if you really don't want to know.

This is how it should go down! Microchips made by Glenn Close? I think not. It's too easy, too gimmicky, too reversible. But real women murdered and replaced by passionless robots, that's good. Now that I'm thinking about it, the fact that they weren't robots in the remake makes for a lot of plot holes. I'm ignoring it, though.

It also explains why Ross was much better as the protagonist than Nicole Kidman. My love for Nicole knows nearly no bounds, but Ross understood the absolute terror that drove Joanna. Kidman seemed more, well, pissed. Ross's Joanna worried and plotted and created the sort of insomnia-ridden paranoiac that we all know we'd turn into in a similar situation. Kidman loved Broderick out it it; Ross smashes Masterson in the head with a fireplace poker.

As it should be. That final close up on Ross' eyes, the slight flicker of fear left you wondering if she really was simply faking it - that's what movies are about.

And Liz was right - this is one of the best clothes movies I have ever seen. I wanted to steal every piece of Bobby's and Joanna's wardrobe that didn't strike me as hopeless dated (read: skanky).

A better movie than Frank Oz's remake? Definitely. That good a movie on its own? Maybe. B-