The Librarian: Quest for the Spear (2005)

I know you are supposed to watch this movie first, you know, so that you know how Flynn gets hooked up with the library, but I watched it third. Still as entertaining as if I watched it first. Not that I could have watched it any other way - I watched the second and third ones a couple of years back when they did marathon on TNT and we missed the first one. So, I watched the third one again night before last, now the first one, and will put a hold on the second one to watch next week. Good stuff.
While watching this film, I have the foresight of knowing where they are going with the characters, so it was interesting to see how it all started in that context.
This movie was goofier than the third, lots of Flynn tripping over his own feet and stuff, only to have him do some truly bad-ass thing based upon something he read combined with his observations of the world around him. Not a bad way to portray librarians, as far as I'm concerned, and if any non-librarian would know, it would probably be me.
I've always thought that Bob Newhart and Jance Curtain were funny, and there roles in this series of movies does nothing to dissuade that. What I didn't know was that I liked Noah Wylie so much. He is more leading man than comedian. Honestly, I bet that actors like Wil Wheaton look at Wylie and are totally jealous because they think that could have been them. Sure Wheaton, blame Wylie for being too short.
Kyle McLachlan as the baddy was great, especially since he was the goodie-turned-baddie. Very nice role for Muad'dib. Honestly, while I might not like all the movies that I've seen McLachlan in, I've always liked his characters.
Lastly, Sonya Walger and Kelly Hu deserve a shout out for the kicking ass and looking hot, if not their acting chops. I don't blame them, though. The script and director made them say and do the cheesy things they did, and at least they did it looking attractive.

The Librarian: Quest for the Spear at IMDb

The Librarian: Curse of the Judas Chalice (2008)

This is a film in which Doctor Carter and Detective Beckett battle Senator...crap, I forgot the character name - the Senator from the first X-Men movie who turns to water...ah well, I've spoiled the moment already.
Okay, Noah Wylie plays a character that is not a doctor, but instead a librarian. I happen to be rather fond of librarians and maybe that's why I think this was a good career move for him. Well, I'm not too familiar with his character on ER. I watched it a few times and remember George Clooney and Anthony Edwards, and a scene with Dr. Carter with a really big beard. Wylie must have been quite young when he played that role.
Stana Katic is the love interest/undead temptress, Simone. When I saw this movie the first time, I didn't know her at all and remembered thinking that she was kind of cute and that I didn't really buy her French accent, even if she had been in the US for a couple of centuries. But, since then I've seen four seasons of Castle in which she plays the indomitable Detective Kate Beckett. She's also pretty young, I think just in her early thirties.
Note to my childhood self in case he reads this through some weird anomalous space-time rip or worm hole - I know that people in their thirties don't seem young, but trust me kid, they are. I don't think women really become beautiful until about thirty, they can be attractive and pretty and gorgeous, but they're missing the seasoning necessary for true beauty. Trust me kid - girls only get better looking and women always trump girls. I think there is a corollary for men too. Brad Pitt for example, much more attractive in his thirties than his twenties. Oh, but don't think it stops then - beauty, I mean truly striking beauty continues on into her fifties and in some cases sixties depending on the woman. Same thing for dudes. But, then it's all downhill from there, which I think you already know.
Okay, back to the matter at hand. This film is like a good version of Warehouse 13. Don't get me wrong, I love that show, but the acting is hit and miss and the episodes are fairly formulaic. The acting in the Librarian films is definitely a notch up. They are made for television, so profanity is lacking, as are the "sexy-sexy", but that's okay. It's funny and the main character is such a nerd as to be a rockstar. Really, I think this film easily stands up against theatrical releases like the National Treasure movies, okay Nick Cage isn't much to win against, so how about also does well against the Lara Croft movies, because I think we can all agree that Angelina Jolie is a better actor than Cage, but they're based on a video game, I know. How about I tell you that in my opinion these films stand up pretty well against the Indiana Jones franchise. Would you believe me? I'm not going to say they're better than Raiders of the Lost Ark, because let's face it, few films are, but I will stick these up against the other three. It the Librarian films had the budget of the Indiana Jones flicks, I'm sure it would win, you know, except against Raiders, because that is one of the best movies of all times.

The Librarian: Curse of the Judas Chalice at IMDb

The Muppets (2011)

I came into this one knowing that I wasn't going to like it. My librarian didn't have anything good to say bout it, and in fact had bad things to say about it. Plus, and only slightly more importantly, I hadn't viewed any new muppet endeavors since the passing of Jim Henson. I don't care how close they got with Kermit's voice, it wasn't the same voice.
A funny thing happened though, maybe it was the magic of the moment or that I was also enspirited by Walter's dream of getting the muppets back together, but the snarky comments faded on my lips. I let the cynicism drop away and gave the mupets a fresh look and a fresh chance.
This movie was funny and entertaining. It was like putting on a favorite pair of old sneakers that you find while cleaning out the garage. It's like a...rehash of the first muppet movie, but you don't mind. Right?
Okay, I've been all nicey-nicey as long as I can. I had this hope of pulling a fast one on my readers, so she'd be all like, "what? this isn't the eric i've come to know and love!" Except that I used "know" where she actually said "accidentally read" and instead of "love" she actually said, "not hate as much as I thought I would". Gotcha!? (He almost confidently states holding his arms out straight in a way he's seen on television that rascals use to show that you gotta love them.)
Honestly though, I don't take back anything I said about the movie - there is just more to say, and I'll try to stop the snark before it hits because it really is unsolicited.
This movie is not for adults, or at least not for adults that watch it alone. Or watch it without playing the accompanying drinking game. I mean the adults when they are alone. The kids should not play the drinking game, though I suppose that two or more adults together might enjoy the drinking game.
When did Disney but the muppets? Is the Richman character a subtle poke at Disney? If that were the case, the movie just got a whole lot better. It certainly explains the uber-predictability of the movie and it's gags. I will concede that people were not watching this for cutting edge anything and on multiple occassions the muppets themselves make fun of this very fact.
Who knew that Amy Adams could sing? Also that she could dance? Also that if you drink every time she twirls you will get very drunk? Also that she is an Academy Award nominee? Also, that I could keep on going like this? Also, did you think I would add the mandatory extra question to make the previous one predictably funny? Also that by funny I mean not funny except in a groany kind of way? Also that groany is too a word?
Okay, okay, okay. I see the elephant is still in the room. Well, both of them. I didn't hate this movie and parts of it I even liked, sometimes in spite of myself. How could my friend be so wrong on this? Usually, it is that she likes things that I don't not vice versa. And what about my moratorium against the new voice talents? I think I have asked more questions in this post than in any other. I mean, haven't I asked more questions? The voices are not the same. I think I'm okay with that. I think. Here's my rationale - there are two ways to think about Kermit and company. First, and the way I have been thinking about them, Kermit for example is an entity akin to an actor who also happens to play the role of Kermit and is voiced by some guy named Jim, just like Miss Piggy plays the role of Miss Piggy and is voiced by some guy named Yoda, I mean Frank. Or the second way to think about, and the way I am allowing myself to try out this night, Kermit is a role just like Hamlet or Batman, and he just happened to be played by Jim Henson. Other actors will play the role and they will be different but not necessarily bad, though some may be as time goes on. But in years to come people might say, "That Robert Pattinson plays a dashing Kermit, but no one compare to the time I saw Jim Henson play Kermit - he was not acting, he was Kermit." Or something.
Also, if you were playing a drinking game while reading this post, you should be drunk if the game was to drink every time I asked a question. Right? You didn't cheat? Not once? And you were drinking alcohol?

The Muppets at IMDb

The Hunger Games (2012)

When you're the fan of a book or set of books, there is always a bit of trepidation when you hear that a movie is coming out based on it or them. Movies are never the book, there is just so much you can't do in a movie, though there is some argument that a mini-series (if done properly) can do justice to a book, but lets stick to movies. Sometimes, they get it very right like Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy and the first Harry Potter movie. Sometimes, they get it wrong, like with the Golden Compass. Thank god this is one of the former.
I watched the previews and ads along with everyone else before this movie hit the theaters, and then I tried to block it out since then, as I didn't want to hear any reviews, especially the internet forum type of thing where people listed what was left out or what was changed. There is time for that after you've seen the movie and decided for yourself if it was good or not. Before the release, I read that Suzanne Collins was very happy with how it turned out. And the only review I listened to after it came out was from the friend who had turned me onto the books, and she loved the movie. Both of those were good enough for me.
And I was not disappointed.
First the props - casting was amazing. Jennifer Lawrence, Stanley Tucci, Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherlin, Lenny Kravitz, Elizabeth Banks were all perfect for their roles and in fact looked very much like how I imagined the characters while reading the book. I expected Snow to be a little thinner and Haymitch to be a little heavier, but that was quickly forgotten. Interestingly, I imagined Snow as being Donald Sutherlin while reading the books. Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth did not look at all how I imagined Peeta and Gale, respectively. But you know what? That's okay. Both of these young men put in performances that made me forget about my preconceptions.
The special effects and costumery were top notch. The fiery outfits for Katniss and Peeta were great, as was Katniss's interview dress, they were all toned down from the descriptions in the book though. But they still worked.
Now the cons - there are really only two that I have, and they're both small nitpicky fanboy kinds of things, well maybe more movie fanboy than Hunger Games fanboy, you be the judge. Caesar explaining tracker jackers as being genetically engineered wasps seemed out of place. They could have gotten by just fine with explaining the effects and showing the insects and let us work out what it was, which they did do the animal pack at the end. The other issue were the boys hair-dos for the guys from the 'professional' districts. They all looked very 2010, which is around the time they would have been preparing to shoot and I think they're going to look dated in a couple of years. I think if they had allowed for some variety in these four or five boys it would go a long way towards stopping this potential datedness.
As you can tell I'm very happy with what I saw and should not be surprised to hear that I'm eagerly awaiting the sequels. And I'll make sure and thank my friend the next time I see her, for turning me onto these books and suggesting that I will love the movie, too.

Hunger Games at IMDb

The Skin I Live In (2011)

This is one fucked up movie. It starts off as perhaps a medical thriller or maybe a sci-fi thriller, you are not really sure which way it's going to go. The answer is that it doesn't go either way. It's a story about what lengths people will go to for love and revenge.
So, Marillo has two sons, Vaca and Roberto. She works as a maid, and Vaca is fathered by another member of the household staff. He is too much for her to deal with so is put into foster care or adopted and then into foster care. She then has Roberto, fathered by her employer who's wife if barren so that they can claim Roberto is their baby. Marillo is the boys nanny and caretaker.
Roberto grows up to become a famous and talented plastic surgeon who marries the girl of his dreams. Vaca, on the run from the law, comes to his mother to be hidden, neither he nor Roberto knowing that they are brothers. Vaca and Roberto's wife start a lurid affair and decide to run away together, leaving Roberto and their daughter Norma behind.
Vaca and the wife get in a horrible, fiery automobile accident. Vaca runs away leaving the woman to die, but Roberto  finds he jsut in a knick of time. She is horribly burned, but through his mad skill as a surgeon saves her life. Because she is horribly scared, he removes all mirrors from her room and keeps it dimly lit with heavy shades. One day upon hearing the singing of her daughter, the daughter that doesn't know she's been horribly burned, the woman pulls open the blinds to see what the sound is. Upon seeing her reflection for the first time and just how hideous she looks, she throws herself out her window to her death, literally right in front of Norma.
Norma has a psychotic break and goes to live at a psychiatric facility. After many years of therapy there, she is finally learning to interact socially with people her own age, that is to say people in their early 20s. The doctor hosts a party with young people from the facility as well as from the town. Roberto is at this party to see how his daughter is coping. But, a young man, high on pills, is also at this party and his name is Vicente.
Vicente and Norma hit off over looks across the room and go for a walk together that culminates in him raping her, and when she starts screaming, he knocks her unconscious. But Roberto has already gone looking for her and sees Vicente fleeing. Unfortunately for Roberto, who is with his daughter when she awakes, Norma has had another psychotic break and now identifies him with the rapist.
After a time back at the hospital, Norma throws herself from a window, dying as her mother had.
Roberto, hell bent on revenge, kidnaps Vicente and holds him prisoner for a while. After what seems to be a couple of weeks, Roberto figures out his revenge. Against Vicente's will, Roberto performs a complete sex change operation. Roberto also begins to experiment on Vicente, now renamed Vera, with an artificial skin made from human cells with a pig's dna or nucleus or something. This goes for a little over four years until the head of the scientific academy finds out about the forbidden use of pig genetic material and demands that Roberto stop his  experiments, to which Roberto agrees.
Vera has half-heartedly tried to kill herself over the years, but Roberto always patches her back up. Now, Marillo councils her son who doesn't know he's her son to kill Vera and dispose of the body so that nobody can find it.
Vaca re-enters the scene, again needing hid from the law. His mother does not want to help him, but allows him in the house. He eventually ties her up and goes looking for Vera whom he has seen on a video display. Vaca remarks that her face looks just like Roberto's dead wife, his dead lover. When Vaca does find Vera, he takes her into her room and forcibly rapes her.
Roberto comes home while this is happening, takes the gun his mother had but couldn't use on Vaca and goes upstairs to Vera's room, where Vaca is still raping her. Roberto aims the gun first at Vera's head, thinking of Marillo's command to kill her now. After a moment of reflection, he then shoots Vaca twice, killing him.
Instead of killing her, Roberto frees Vera and they briefly become lovers until she gains his trust and freedom of the house long enough to get the gun which she uses to kill Roberto and Marillo before returning home to her mother.
Pretty straight-forward, right? Except I told you the story chronologically, not the order which it takes place in the film. But, hey, at least I've ruined the surprises for you.
The film is worth watching for the sake of seeing Antonio Banderas in action in a role that is not your typical leading man role. But, also be warned that this movie is pretty graphic in it's portrayal of violence towards women.

The Skin I Live In at IMDb