So while I found Stallings's story, and even her hints, very interesting, and even underlined a handful of passages and bugged Chris to read the book himself (how's that going, by the way, Chris?), I'm not sure useful it's going to be to me, personally.

Rating

Read it, assuming you're getting married
However, look to it more for inspiration than for concrete ideas.  And if you're planning a traditional, bridal-magazine wedding, you may not want to bother.

The rest of the Internet

Stallings's blog.
Become a fan of the book on Facebook.
Anne Johnson at Venus Zine reviews the book.
West Coast Crafty interviews Stallings.
Sienna Madrid at The Stranger reviews the book.
The book helps The Hyphenated Bride consider her priorities.

Image via WikipediaI Am America (And So Can You!)
By Stephen Colbert, 2007, hardback

You should know
I got this book as a birthday present from my brother -- very appropriate, since today is his birthday. Happy birthday, Dave!

And as long as I'm doing shout-outs, I want to wish warmest congratulations to Chris, Taz, and Alli at NFC East Homers, as well as Connie, Geoff, Rebecca, Annabella, Gary, Brendan, and all the other brand-new Boston University JDs.

Right. The book.

I grew up without cable television, so there are a lot of shows that I'll watch, but that I never really followed. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are among these shows; I'll watch them and enjoy them if they're on, but if I don't see them for a year or two, I really don't care. However, I do have a copy of America (The Book) -- actually, that was a gift from my brother, too, now that I think about it...

So?
Please tell me you know better than to take Stephen Colbert seriously. Because if you take him at all seriously, you'll find this book offensive.

And that's pretty much it. Take all of Colbert's off-the-wall, contradictory, hilariously appalling (or appallingly hilarious, as you like) political positions, and roll it into book about life. We learn about Colbert's colorblindness, his dominance over the family dog, Gipper, and the secret agenda of baby carrots.

Rating
Read it if...
You like Colbert, and/or are not easily offended.

Seriously, I enjoyed the book, but really, there's not much to say about it. Either it's self-explanatory, or you won't get it. Colbert plays a character, and this book is the character's story.

The rest of the Internet
The Wikipedia page.
Janet Maslin at the New York Times enjoyed the book, but found it fell short of the show.
The book's official site.
Alynda Wheat at Entertainment Weekly gave it a "B."
Read an excerpt at ABCnews.com

Made to Stick
By Chip Heath and Dan Heath, 2007


You should know
I've read several books recently with similar themes as the ones in this book, and I'll be reviewing them as I go -- I'm fairly backlogged. In fact, this book is inspired by Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point, which is in my queue to be reviewed.


So?
The Heath brothers are both educators -- Chip a business professor and Dan a former textbook publisher -- who have spent their careers looking for the ideas that really stick in the minds of students or consumers. In Made to Stick, the Heaths outline the factors of "sticky" ideas: simplicity, unexpectedness, concreteness, credibility, emotions, and stories, which in acronym form almost spells out the word SUCCESS. There's just one "S" missing.

Simplicity means the idea should be as basic as possible, not weighed down with extra details. Sure, those details may seem crucial to you, but you're the expert, and you're trying to communicate with a total novice (this is called the "curse of knowledge").

Unexpectedness means what it sounds like -- doing something that catchers the listener or viewer off-guard, which causes them to remember what you did.

Concreteness means concentrating on tangible things. Abstracts float over people's heads too easily to make a concept sticky.

Credibility means trusting the source. The "friend of a friend" designation we use when repeating urban legends is actually a citation of credibility -- the teller, apparently, actually knows the victim.

Emotions are also fairly self-explanatory. Making someone care is a good way to make them remember, and it's easier to care about a single person than a million all at once.

And Stories tend to sum up at least a few of the other factors. They can be concrete, emotional, credible, and can easily incorporate both the simple and the unexpected.

I very much enjoyed this book, but I had to look up the SUCCESs formula... so maybe Made to Stick could have been just a touch stickier.


Rating
Read it if...
...You're into nonfiction, particularly about human nature. If you like Malcolm Gladwell, or The Paradox of Choice, or Freakonomics, this will fit right in


The rest of the Internet
The book's official website and blog.
The Wikipedia page.
A glowing review by Michael S. Hopkins at the Christian Science Monitor.
tink at BlogCritics is impressed by the book.
Trent at The Simple Dollar outlines how he applies the SUCCESs formula to his own life.
Ankesh Kothari at BlogClout outlines how bloggers can use the concepts in the book.


Awesome link of the week
Way back in the early-to-mid 1990s, cartoons were beginning to take on the technical and technological advances we're used to, while maintaining the sometimes dark, violent, even adult aspects of cartoons of years gone by. Go back and watch Animaniacs, or Batman: the Animated Series, or this Disney series that has been called an American anime.

Gargoyles still has a cult following and is back in graphic novel form. And for years, Greg Weisman has been answering questions for the fans.

Ask Greg is a forum for fans to ask questions about Gargoyles and other series Weisman has worked on (Max Steel, W.I.T.C.H., The Spectacular Spider-Man ). There's usually a backlog (Greg is still very active in his day job(s), after all), and when it gets overwhelming, the site is sometimes closed to new questions, but even when that happens, there's an extensive archive -- you might be able to find out more to answer your question than you thought. And it's all canon (or at least semi-canon).

The Golden Compass
2007, in theaters

You should know
Ok, I actually have read this one. I’ve only read the first book in the trilogy, but I plan on borrowing the rest from Dan one of these days.

When we saw the movie, Dan had not read the book yet. He went out and bought the trilogy soon after.

I’m also currently re-reading the book for my book club. We’ll be talking about the spiritual/religious messages and the controversy. I’m looking forward to it.

So?
While the story was definitely watered down from the original text, it was fairly close, at least in spirit. I didn’t have much of a problem with the cuts and changes that were chosen for time constraints (although the movies is only 113 minutes long, not quite two hours). Iorek Byrnison is toned down a bit, Serafina Pekkala’s role is shortchanged, and the revelation of Lyra’s parentage is handled very differently than in the book, but otherwise, I was satisfied. That said, the movie ended a bit before the book did, although not on an inappropriate note.

To review the plot: Lyra, an orphan girl living at a major university in Oxford in a universe where people’s souls are housed in familiars called daemons, is thrust into a dangerous plot when she catches a university official trying to poison her uncle, Lord Asrael. Soon after, she’s taken in (in both senses of the phrase) by the lovely, if suspicious, Mrs. Coulter, at which point she finally gets a taste of the danger and adventure to come. Children are being kidnapped, daemons are in danger, and Lyra comes into the possession of an alethiometer, the titular golden compass that tells her the truth about anything she asks of it. Airships, polar bears, Texans… I think I covered most of this in my review of the book.

Rating
Check it out
If you enjoyed the book but aren’t a stickler for perfect transcription, if you like a good fantasy movie, or if you have older kids (it’s a bit intense for little ones), go for it. But don’t expect heavy-handed Catholic bashing a la the controversy.

The rest of the Internet
Warning: possible spoilers
At the official move site, you can play with an alethiometer or create your own daemon.
The Wikipedia pages for the film and the book.
The IMDb page.
Snopes confirms the root of the controversy.
The reviews are not great at Rotten Tomatoes.
Peter T. Chattaway at Christianity Today seemed to like the movie well enough, though he considers the religious themes potentially problematic. The article includes some interesting discussion questions.
Stephanie Zacharek at Salon did not like the movie at all.
Songshards liked the movie more than the book.
John at Come to Find Out liked the movie, but loved the book.
Chris Kohler at Underwire thinks the movie should have been longer and darker.

Awesome link of the week
Now, those who know me might not guess that I’d pick a blog about World War I. But those who know me really well won’t be too surprised by this one. It's all about letters.

Pte Harry Lamin would be 120 this year. He served in the First World War as a member of the British Army, and over the course of the war wrote many letters home. The letters he sent to his brother and sister were saved, and his grandson, Bill, has taken to posting transcriptions of the letters 90 years to the day from when they were written. Since Harry’s family never knew when (or if) another letter was coming, neither do the readers (although Bill occasionally will give readers a heads-up if he has reason to believe the delay is due to a bundle of letters being lost, rather than a disaster). He has also compiled reader comments and his responses to many of them, as well as transcriptions of the battalion’s war diaries to add historical context.

Bill Lamin will not reveal Harry’s fate -- and since Harry left a young son at home when he went to war, Bill’s existence is not a clue. I’m hoping we’ll get to read some nice, happy letters either this November 11 or next June.

I Am Legend
2007, in theaters

You should know
Once again, I have not read the book – but I want to. I hear the movie diverges from the book significantly.

I saw this film with Chris, Brian, and another friend of ours.

Also, be warned: there is at least one tear-jerking moment involving a dog.

So?
For the most part I enjoyed the film. The ending fell a little flat, although it could have been worse, and I had several questions about plot points (which are spoilery; scroll down).


























Maybe it was just me, but I had some trouble making the connection between the AlphaZombie/Vampire and Neville. Only on reading the Wikipedia page did I make the connection.

Why did Neville have to strangle Sam? (Hey, I warned you.) He could have put her down humanely; heck, he could have sedated her before injecting the cure, just like he did all the other test subjects. But no.

And how, exactly, did Anna and Ethan get onto Manhattan Island, anyway?

















Ok, spoilers are done.

As Dr. Robert Neville, Will Smith once again proves that when he’s actually challenged – that is, not just playing himself – he’s a terrific actor. For that matter, the dog was a very good actor, as well. I can’t swear it’s true, but I’ve read that she does her own stunts (except for fetching).

In all, it’s far more sad than scary, which I think the early marketing captured pretty well. Be prepared going in to be emotionally manipulated.

Rating
See it…
…Assuming you’re ok with emotional manipulation and zombies (or vampires. It’s ambiguous). Some people hate the one; some hate the other. These people should avoid the movie. And parents of little kids should definitely see it and make a judgment call before letting their children see it; nightmares could be caused by half a dozen aspects of this film.

The rest of the Internet
Warning: Spoilers abound
The IMDb page for the film.
The Wikipedia page for the book.
Decent, if not spectacular, reviews at Rotten Tomatoes.
Christianity Today reviews the film and offers some interesting discussion questions.
Stephanie Zacharek at Salon finds the psychology much more interesting than the action. Most critics seem inclined to agree (myself included).
Tom Russo at Entertainment Weekly compares Smith in I Am Legend with Charlton Heston in Omega Man.
Different reviews describe the film as timely or nostalgic.
At Off the Meat Rack, a big fan of Omega Man reviews I Am Legend.
Phil BC at A Very Public Sociologist considers potentially sexist themes in the film.
Dave Loveless at The Prodigal considers Smith the new Harrison Ford.

Awesome link of the week
Sars at Tomato Nation is one of the founders of Television Without Pity, keeps her blog chock full of movie and book reviews, advice, creative writing, shopping help, baseball talk, and slices of New York life. If you want to know where to get those shoes, how to get the cat to stop peeing on things, or exactly what is going on with the Yankees, cruise the archives.

Neverwhere: A Novel

2003, by Neil Gaiman, paperback

Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch

1990, by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett, paperback, from the library

Making Money

2007, by Terry Pratchett, hardback, from the library

You should know

Bit by bit, I’m trying to increase my geek cred.

So?

Fantasy, satire, subtle cultural references, and British humor packaged for export. Yeah, I’m a fan. It’s taken me a while to get into the works of these two authors, but I’m chipping away at their works. When I got a chance to get my hands on a copy of Good Omens, I was in.

From the top: Neverwhere is the story of a normal, unremarkable man who wakes up in a fascinating world of London Below, that he had never noticed. Like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz, his primary goal is getting back to his normal life. Meanwhile, he has to help a young lady named Door protect herself and find out what happened to her slain family. Good guys, bad guys, and morally ambiguous guys add excitement to their quest.

Good Omens is about the end of the world. At least, it’s supposed to be. An angel, a demon, and the Antichrist are all too human for the good of the Almighty’s Plan, so nothing happens quite the way it’s supposed to – or does it? That depends on whether you can interpret the titular prophesies, as a young witch and clueless witch hunter attempt to do.

Making Money is the sequel to Going Postal, featuring the return of semi-reformed con man Moist von Lipwig. Having successfully revitalized the Post Office by inventing postage stamps, Moist is now faced with the charge of saving the Bank – which he sets out to do by inventing paper money and going off the gold standard. He also has to negotiate with necromancers and save Golems while protecting himself from a spoiled, wealthy family, one of whose members is convinced he’s turning into Lord Vetinari.

Good times.

Rating

Check them out
Now, if you find you don’t like either Gaiman or Pratchett, of course you’ll want to avoid these novels; they are good examples of each author’s style. And Making Money might be easier to follow if you read Going Postal first. But overall, all three of these books were good, entertaining reads that I’m happy to recommend.

The rest of the Internet

The Wikipedia page for Neverwhere.
Neil Gaiman’s website.
A review at CNN.com.
A Neverwherereading guide from HarperCollins.
More Neverwhere questions at BookBlog.
A positive review from Heather at Beside the Norm.
The Good Omens Wikipedia page.
The Good Omens Lexicon is a guide to all the characters, places, and objects in the novel.
Good Omens in under a minute.
Philip Carlsson at Wonderful Comics analyzes Good Omens.
What character from Good Omens are you? (I'm Aziraphale)
Macshaggy at Shaggy Logic was not thrilled with Good Omens.
An enthusiastic review of Good Omens at Wanderlust.
Crawley and Aziraphale's New Year's Resolutions.
The Making Money Wikipedia page.
Corey Doctorow at Boing Boing reviews Making Money.
The Wikipedia pages for Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett.
If you haven't already heard: the recent bad news about Pratchett (open note to Matt: here's a chance to bone up on a Great while he's still producing).

Awesome link of the week

The Daily Puppy has become my go-to site at the end of the day. Each day, the site features a series of photos of an adorable puppy – many different breeds are represented, as are designer mixes and proper mutts. Chris has repeatedly expressed his desire to steal Savannah Mae, although I have to admit to a bias towards Elton and Peanut. If it's been a rough day, nothing cheers you up like a puppy.

The Simpsons Movie

2007, in theaters

You should know

Chris, Brian and I went to visit Paul for the weekend. A pleasant time was had by all.

We’re all moderate fans; while most of us have seen few if any episodes from the past few seasons, we’re not about to shout from the rooftops that they’re pure garbage, either – after all, we haven’t seen them, have we?

So?

Can he swing
From a web?
No, he can’t
He’s a pig

…Sorry. It’s just so catchy and absurd, as Simpsons songs tend to be (“Who needs the Kwik-E-Mart? / Their floors are sticky-mart.” Ahem).

The movie does not ignore its roots. The oft-quoted joke at the beginning about the Itchy and Scratchy movie just leads up to an expanded version of the opening theme, and later on an advertising bar scrolls across the bottom of the screen, poking fun at the Fox network. There are also some moments that are there just to take advantage of the PG-13 rating – Marge curses, Bart is exposed, Otto does drugs, and Homer flips someone off (although since the Simpsons only have four fingers on each hand, I wonder if they could get away with that on TV…).

Oh, the plot? As in any decent Simpsons episode, the plot meanders – for instance, in "Two Bad Neighbors", I love the flea market scene, but despise the Dennis the Menace spoof. In the movie, a Green Day concert leads to a community movement to clean up Lake Springfield, while Homer gets a pet pig and Bart spends quality time with Flanders. How does this all lead to the family moving to Alaska? It all makes a twisted sort of sense when you watch the movie straight through.

Also, because the film utilized many of the show’s top writers, including Matt Groening himself, the humor manages to appeal to a wide audience.

Not everyone laughed at every joke – for example, some people prefer subtle literary references, others prefer vomit jokes, a few like both, and plenty like neither. But every joke got laughed at by a decent portion of the audience.

All in all, the movie took aspects of some of the better (though not best) episodes of the show and, rather than stretching them, layered them to make the story more epic. Though Homer asks, “Why pay for something you can see on TV for free?” the film would not work as well if cut up into 22-minute “to be continued” chunks, and would probably lose some humor to FCC-mandated censorship.

Rating

See it
I wouldn’t blame you if, especially at this point, you wanted to wait for the DVD release. Still, don’t wait until it hits broadcast TV, or even basic cable – it will lose something.

Also, don’t skip it with the notion that episode quality has decreased over the last few years. The writers have made sure that the film will appeal to Simpsons fans – and that seems to include just about everyone.

Also, make sure you stay through to the very, very end of the credits.

The rest of the Internet

The IMDb page.
The Wikipedia entry.
Good reviews at Rotten Tomatoes.
Good -- but not spectacular -- reaction from Roger Ebert.
David Silverman at Rolling Stone was "entertained but frustrated."
An observant viewer notes a recurring ambulance at The Easter Egg Archive.
Daniel Fienberg at Check the Fien Print shares my color scheme and my love of Spider-Pig, but was mildly disappointed overall.
Joseph Smith at the Sydney Anglican Network considers the Christian messages in the movie.
Jeff at MovieHawk was pleased with the film.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
2007, in theaters
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
By J.K. Rowling, 2007

You should know
First of all, my apologies for the lateness, but considering I'm reviewing both, I think you understand why. I actually went to the midnight release at my local Barnes and Noble with Dan Friday night, where he picked up his copy; Saturday Brian picked up his copy and then we saw the movie. They both told me I could read it when they were done – and they both had their copies swiped by their younger siblings. I got the book Tuesday night, finished it Wednesday, and now, here I am. I’ve been keeping up with the fallout, and then recovering from a mild case of Potter Burnout (Harry Potter and the Burnout of Fandom?). But I’m back.

Also, please be aware. While I will not be spoiling Deathly Hallows, there may be spoilers for the first six books – and since Order of the Phoenix is based on the book, the movie might be slightly spoiled. Please take this seriously, and do not flame me if you learn something that happened four books ago.

So?
Let’s start with the movie, as it takes place earlier chronologically and, hey, I saw it before I read the book.

First of all, it was a brilliant (and completely atypical) blend of skill and luck that got us into our seats just as the previews started. Lots of kids’ epics coming up, by the way.

When the movie opens, Harry is being emo at a playground, which I suppose is more theatrical than Harry being sullen in the bushes as he is in the book.

And since the Harry Potter series has been put to rest, let me reveal some rejected book titles as I go (…ok, I’m lying. These are all mine).

(Harry Potter and the Bangs of Angst?)

So Harry and his cousin Dudley are doing their things at the playground – Dudley terrorizing small children, Harry moping about life with the Dursleys (Harry Potter and the Obnoxious Relatives?). The day is interrupted by Dementors, which come very close to killing Dudley, but Harry’s a good guy, so he saves his tormentor’s life. This, of course, is why it’s so hard to vanquish villains – heroes tend to keep saving them

Harry’s underage, so the Ministry of Magic puts him on trial for using magic outside school, giving Harry his first run-in with the Ministry’s policy of interference, which comes to a head as Delores Umbridge, Ministry Goon, becomes the new Defense Against Dark Arts professor (Harry Potter and My Brother’s Seventh-Grade English Teacher?).

Since Harry lives to star in two more books, it’s hardly a spoiler to tell you that, well, he lives to star in two more books. But someone else doesn’t, and if you haven’t read the book, let me tell you that when Order of the Phoenix first came out, the death was considered a huge spoiler ( Harry Potter and the Spoilers of Nonsensewordia?).

The movie had the expected awesome effects, and told the story well enough; again, cutting such a thick book into a watchable movie requires the loss of some subplots. Ron's adventures on the Quidditch field were eliminated, Hermione’s interest in House-Elf rights continues to be ignored, and Fred and George’s major act of defiance is played off as merely two trouble-makers making yet more trouble. None of these things are deal breakers, but their lack did remind me that as long as the movie was, the book is even more so (Harry Potter and the Thorough Edit?).

Overall, though, I enjoyed the movie. Harry’s complicated romance with Cho, Luna’s charming brand of flightiness, and the beginning of Neville coming into his own are all done very well. Umbridge was perfect (Ok, so she wasn’t all that toad-like; the spirit was captured perfectly, though).

But really, the movie got lost in the excitement of the release of Deathly Hallows.

They say you can tell comedies from tragedies because comedies end with weddings and tragedies end with funerals. Deathly Hallows begins with one of each. I’m sure if you’re even remotely familiar with the Harry Potter universe, you know exactly who these ceremonies were for, but in the interest of keeping things spoiler-free, I won’t reveal it to the three of you who don’t know (hi, Chris!).

So Harry, Ron, and Hermione take off on their world-saving scavenger hunt, and it’s no spoiler to tell you that Harry gets angsty, Ron and Hermione fight, people die, and at least one person is Not What S/He Appears. Plus, we learn more about wizarding history as we see Dumbledore, Snape, and Lily before they were the world-changing figures Harry knows them to be (Harry Potter and the Flashback of Destiny?).

I think that for the most part, the book made for a good end to the series. I think the middle section could have gone more quickly, either in terms of action or length, and while I didn’t despise the epilogue, I think it tied up loose ends that didn’t really need it, while leaving others hanging that I was genuinely curious about. There are some really interesting parallels drawn between characters, and the epilogue ignores them completely. Then again, I’m a former English major, not a twelve-year-old, so I suppose what I’m looking for doesn’t necessarily need to exist. That said, I hope Rowling considers things like that when and if she delves into adult literature (no, not Adult literature; we’ll leave that to the fanfiction [note: this link is filtered for only g-rated fic, so it’s safe for work {assuming it’s safe for human consumption in the first place (I like parentheticals)}]).

Rating
Begin at the beginning
Definitely check these out, but make sure you start from scratch. Coming in halfway means you risk losing references. Don’t see Order of the Phoenix unless you’ve either read the book or seen the first four films, and definitely don’t read Deathly Hallows until you’ve read the first six books. And hey, by the time you catch up, it’ll be off the wait list at the library.

The rest of the Internet
Beware of spoilers...
The Order of the Phoenix IMDb page and Wikipedia pages for film and book.
Critics at Rotten Tomatoes found it decent.
Mugglenet breaks down some fun facts about the movies.
Rolling Stone's movie review.
Nice word in Salon's review.
Roger Ebert seemed to have mixed feelings about the movie.
Bittersweet reactions to the film at NPR.
A good reaction from a non-fan at Independent Country.
Order of the Phoenix is better in film form, according to Moomin Light.
Matt at [sic] reviews the movie.
Jeff at MovieHawk reviews the movie and the book.
MSNBC rounds up reader reactions.
Daniel Radcliffe offers his reactions to Entertainment Weekly, where Stephen King weighs in as well.
Rowling's website.
Reviews from The New York Times, the Times Online, and Scotland on Sunday (which has at least one slightly erroneous spoiler).
Nina at Underside, John at Hogwarts Professor, Vicky at rejesus, Kari at Through a Glass, Darkly, and Peter T. Chattaway at Canadian Christianity all reflect on religion in the books.

Transformers
2007, in theaters

You should know
I wasn’t one of the legions of little kids obsessed with Transformers. I actually have the 20th Anniversary edition of the original Transformers movie sitting next to my DVD player, waiting for me. In other words, I don’t have the background in the series that some do.

I saw this movie with Dan, who, like many, many men his age, was a huge fan as a kid.

So?
Sam Witwicky is just a high school kid who wants two things: a car, and a girl. As the movie opens, he’s almost got the car, and to help pay it off, he’s selling off some antiques that belonged to his great-grandfather, an Arctic explorer. One of these antiques is a map to an alien artifact that is highly sought by two opposing groups of alien robots – one of whom is Sam’s car.

Now, if this plotline didn’t have the Transformers name attached to it, would you be at all interested? I might not be, unless it was in the Snakes on a Plane sense. But this was decent entertainment, if rather mindless.

That said, it was a giant commercial. Now, if you expected it not to be, I’m a little disappointed in you: this is a film based on a cartoon based on a toy. Of course it’s a commercial! It advertised the toys, as well as cars, soda, and the U.S. Army (and by extension, G. I. Joe, at least by my count), Furby, My Little Pony, and probably a good dozen other things I missed.

As for the story, there were a few too many stereotypes for my taste, and I don’t care if the Autobots did use the World Wide Web to learn English – Optimus Prime should never use the term “my bad” (to be fair, I hate the term “my bad”). And Bumblebee is just a little perverted. Without spoiling anything, I’ll just say this: combine the early scene with the girl and the radio with the closing shot, and you’ll see.

Rating
Oh, go ahead
As I said, it’s mindless fun, and most of the fans I’ve spoken to have found at least something to enjoy – many even really enjoyed it. At worst it’s a dumb, action-packed summer film, but since it’s the middle of July, there’s nothing wrong with that.

The rest of the Internet
The IMDb page.
Wikipedia on the TV series and toys.
Middling opinions from critics and decent ones from users at Rotten Tomatoes.
The Transformers video game.
Roger Ebert seemed pleased but not thrilled.
Print up your own Transformers coloring book pages!
An unofficial Transformers Firefox theme.
An open letter to Optimus Prime.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End
2007, in theaters

You should know
I’ve seen both previous movies in the series in theaters. I reviewed Dead Man's Chest, and even made a prediction about this (supposed) final chapter.

Now, I want to be fair and disclose that I was having a very bad night when I saw this, and didn’t particularly want to bother. Brian dragged me out anyway.

So?
I may not have wanted to see the movie that night, but it was good to see it. And fortunately, my prediction wasn’t right – not entirely, anyway.

Normally, I would warn you about spoilers here, but I’m going to assume that if you’re bothering to read a review of At World's End, you’ve already seen Curse of the Black Pearl and Dead Man's Chest.

When we last left our heroes, Will was desperate to save his father, Elizabeth was desperate to save Jack, and Jack was, well, dead. More or less.

After a chilling opening that demonstrates that the law-abiding authority figures are the real villains (as they’d have to be if we’re to root for the pirates), the action picks up in the middle of a typically chaotic plot, chock full of double- and triple-crossing, that is intended to serve both those goals. Too bad Will and Elizabeth never bothered to talk to each other about those goals.

So, do the people who need saving get saved, the people who need killing get killed, and the people who need their happily-ever-after get it? Well, it’s a Disney film, so the best you can hope for in terms of surprises is “Sort of.” Which is what we got.

But Keith Richards did, in fact, show up, which was fairly awesome. Which brings me back to my prediction:

Do you remember the Matrix trilogy? An excellent, fun, popular movie that stood alone with no trouble, but that sparked the imaginations of fans who waited eagerly for a sequel? A fun but inferior sequel that was known ahead of time to be a setup for part three? A dismal, pointless conclusion that was notable only for its special effects?

Let’s just say I have a bad feeling about this trilogy.

I'm not afraid to admit I was wrong. At World's End is far superior to Matrix Revolutions. That's the beautiful thing about being a pessimist; either you get to be right, or you're wrong but something good happens instead.

Rating
See it if…
…You’ve seen the first two. Otherwise, go see the first two, and then come see this one.

The rest of the Internet
The franchise and film both have Wikipedia pages.
Users liked the movie much better than critics at Rotten Tomatoes.
Stephanie Zacharek at Salon wasn't thrilled.
Ryan Stewart at Cinematical seems to think my original prediction came to pass.
A group review at Movie Binge.

Spider-Man 3
2007, in theaters

You should know
I saw Spider-Man at a big promotional event at my undergrad. I saw Spider-Man 2 in theaters.

I saw Spider-Man 3 with Brian.

So?
I wasn’t thrilled. With three or four villains (depending how you’re counting), and at least two romantic interests, the movie is trying to do far too much. And they have the time – the film is long. I could have lost a subplot and a good 45 minutes and been satisfied.

One bit of excess that could have been cut with no loss? The “Peter Parker dances like an idiot” bit. He just embarrasses himself. It’s not funny. It’s not cute. It’s just embarrassing, and I wanted to sink into my seat and pretend I wasn’t there just for having seen it (hmm, that could explain why I hated Napolean Dynomite, come to think of it).

Interestingly, the “Uncle Ben’s killer” retcon didn’t bother me. It was just feasible enough that I could sort of block out the inconsistencies. After all, there are two things necessary for Spider-Man’s life: angst, and stupid one-liners.

Topher Grace made a pretty good Eddie Brock -- and that’s considering that I was raised on the animated version, who was far more bulky than Eric Forman could ever hope to be. The Gwen Stacy plotline was disappointing, though; if the filmmakers were going to completely ignore her significance, they really should have left her out altogether. Love of Spidey’s life who died tragically, providing Parker with a much-needed wake-up call? Not so much. If there was going to be a hot blonde to make MJ feel insecure, I would have preferred the Black Cat. Oh well, maybe next time.

And I’m sure there’ll be a next time. They keep bringing out Dr. Connors. Something will have to be done with him.

Also, I would like to remark upon the new trend of superpowered young men named Peter running around New York City with emo hair. Lose the emo hair, Peter. Reader's choice which one I'm talking to.

Rating
See it if you haven’t yet
Oh, you probably have. It might not be the best in the series. It may not even be worth catching in theaters, especially if you’re so on the fence about it that you haven’t seen it yet. But if you’ve caught the first two, you should give the third a chance.

The rest of the Internet
Beware of spoilers
The IMDb page.
Middling reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.
The Variety review.
10 things the folks at CinemATTIC learned from Spider-Man 3.
The Wikipedia page.
Vic Holtreman at Screenrant enthuses on seeing the film on IMAX.
Kelly Candaele at The Huffington Post considers the politics - and philosophy - of Spider-Man 3.
Meanwhile, Dan Phillips at Pyromaniacs considers the problematic theology of the film.
Christianity Today also considers the movie.
Matt at [sic] and Jeff at MovieHawk weigh in.

300
2007, in theaters

You should know
I’ve never read the graphic novel (although I’d like to) and I generally just didn’t know much about the battle. Most of what I’d heard about the movie relates to three categories: racism, pro-Bush rhetoric, and topless men running around in loincloths and capes. And it’s all there, sort of.

So?
Dan and Brian were both eager to go to the movies. Dan had seen 300 already and highly recommended it, and was willing to see it again.

Brian mentioned preferring a bit less sex mixed in with his violence; fair enough. I’m sure you’ve heard all the commentary about how, in a movie about a bunch of muscular men walking around in loincloths and capes, something has to appeal to the straight men in the audience. I’m not sure I buy it, but then, I’m not a straight man. I am a former English major, though, and I managed to come up with literary purposes for almost all of the sex scenes – and I have no idea what the sex-to-violence ration was in the original text.

It was violent, though. Oh, was it violent. Heads and limbs were severed on a regular basis, multiple eyes were put out, animals and people alike were tossed over cliffs into the sea, forts were made from corpses, and a thick layer of blood coated the scenery, causing the bodies to blend in with the rocks.

That said, it was fairly enjoyable. The plot was loose, but it was enough to hold the events together. The narration was a bit unclear, but it made sense by the end. I sort of expected to have odd dreams that night (we saw a late-night show and I went to bed shortly after arriving at home) but I didn’t.

Rating
See it if…
…You had no problems with either The Passion of the Christ or V for Vendetta. The most objectionable parts of both of these movies (violence, racism, political agendas, that sort of thing) show up in 300, especially if you go in looking for them, so if you couldn’t stand those, you won’t like this one, either. Otherwise, though… it was good, mindless, violent fun.

The rest of the Internet
Beware of spoilers
The Wikipedia pages for the movie and the actual Battle of Thermopylae.
Decent reviews at Rotten Tomatoes.
Salon was less impressed.
RIchard Roeper enjoyed it for what it is.
HowStuffWorks explains the fun stuff behind the movie.
Jeff at Movie Hawk and Matt at [sic] saw it at the same time.
Leonidas and his 300 warriors have their own website.

Wild Hogs
2007, in theaters

You should know
I saw the cast on Oprah a while back, and thought the movie looked cute. Brian really wanted to see it, and I felt like seeing a movie without much caring which one.

So?
John Travolta’s character was named Woody, which I think was done purely as a shout-out to Tim Allen’s two turns as Buzz Lightyear (And was funny just for the mental image of Buzz saying “Woody, what is this [bleep]?”).

Ok, I got that out of the way. Now, the movie seemed like it was trying to be a true family movie, in that it had all different kinds of humor in hopes of appealing to every member of the family. And we all know how rarely that works. There’s poop jokes, mild homophobia to prove that this is completely heterosexual male bonding, plenty of semi-slapstick violence… really, nothing you can’t see on the Simpsons tonight at 6. Hmm, now there’s a movie I want to see.

But back to Wild Hogs. The premise is simple: four suburban men ride their motorcycles to their local suburban faux biker bar every weekend and complain about their dull lives. When Woody’s ex cleans him out in the divorce settlement, he decides he’s going on a road trip to escape his life, and talks his friends into going with him. While on the road trip, they manage to start a feud with a real biker gang, and take refuge in a small town during the chili festival. Hijinks ensue, as they tend to do.

Rating
Wait for video
It’s not a bad little movie, overall, and at times it was pretty fun. Still, I can’t in good conscience encourage you to spend $9 to see it. It should be coming to DVD pretty soon though; give it a rental.

The rest of the Internet
Beware of Spoilers
The IMDb page.
Rotten reviews at Rotten Tomatoes.
The Wikipedia page.
A review at The Hollywood Reporter.
A viscious review at Film Threat.
A review at Variety.
The Onion's A.V. Club
A review at Film Flap considers that the point of the movie may have been for its stars to have a good time.

TMNT: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
2007, on the big screen

You should know
Ah, generational kids’ shows. I was a tiny bit too young to appreciate Transformers. I loved Ghostbusters, though I barely remember any of the episodes. And I’ll even admit to a mild fondness for the glory days of both Power Rangers and Pokemon.

But the first show I was really into, the one that got me buying videos and action figures, was Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

So when the movie came out, Brian and I made plans to catch it opening weekend.

So?
The movie takes place later in the timeline than the other well-known continuities. The Shredder is out of the picture, and the Turtles are all doing their own things: IT, catering, and two different flavors of vigilantism, to be precise. Before long, the brothers are reunited, and the eternal power struggle between Leonardo and Raphael emerges.

Now, I’m going to try to avoid spoilers by discussing this in the context of my memories of the franchise as a whole. It seems to me that in every incarnation, Raphael has problems with authority in general, and hypocritical authority in specific. Unfortunately, Leonardo as the leader has to deal with the former struggle, and as a perfectionist has to deal with the latter. In the conflict of the current film, Raphael is his typical, less-than-sympathetic self, but ultimately I side with him; the things Leonardo criticizes the most are the very same things that Leonardo himself did, causing the rift in the first place. And if you haven’t yet seen the movie, I’ve probably just confused you.

Now, every review I’ve read has deemed this movie darker than the first of the live-action films. It’s rated PG. There’s violence, references to killing, and a mild implication of sex: the unmarried romantic leads live together – hardly unheard of, but surprising in a kids’ movie. And that’s just it: I was not surprised to see that most of the audience was under 10, but I’m not convinced it was a movie for little kids.

All in all, it was an entertaining film, and stayed faithful enough to my memories of the Turtles. Yes, it was a bit darker and not quite as cartoonish, but I’m not 5 anymore, so that works for me. Maybe the youngest audience members should have been shown video of the old cartoon instead, but those of us who saw that incarnation the first time around will be pleased.

A bit of advice
It’s tough to bring kids to the movies. Can your kid handle sitting still? Can he or she keep quiet for an hour or two at a time? How does he or she handle the dark, or loud noises? You know your kid, and I’m going to trust your judgment on this stuff: 90% of the kids at the theater were very well behaved (though I would submit that just because a character onscreen yells something, that isn’t license for a kids to yell it back three or four times – but then, I’m fairly anti-catchphrase).

All that said, here is a bit of unsolicited advice.

If you know your child is going to play with things at duller moments, don’t give her hard candy in a plastic or cardboard box. It makes a lovely maraca, which is a terrible movie-time toy.

If he’s going to be distraught that the whole family can’t sit together, show up extra-early and make sure you all get seats together.

Try for the end of the row, if you think your kid is going to have to get up during the film.

Once your seats have been claimed, take turns going to the bathroom while the commercials are running; you don’t need to see another Sprite ad anyway.

And while soda is a fun treat, adult bladders can’t handle the giant gallon cups, and most of us can’t quite tolerate all that sugar and caffeine. You know what drinking a 2-liter of Coke would do to you. Why do the same to your child? Especially when she’s going to have to pee, run around, climb over all the other people in the row, and burn off energy by playing with her candy.

Now, you don’t have to take any of my advice; I don’t have kids, so I wouldn’t suggest that I know better than someone who does. These are just some ideas on how the movie-going experience might go smoothly for you, your children, and the folks sitting next to, behind, or in front of you.

And I do want to express my appreciation to that 90% of kids who were well-behaved, and to their parents, who taught them well and prepared wisely for the trip.

Rating
More for older fans
It’s not a bad film for older kids, but as I noted, younger ones might not be able to handle the more intense movie. Then again, older kids are probably in that in-between area – too young to have seen it in the late ‘80s, early ‘90s, but too old to have watched the 2003 cartoon.

The rest of the Internet
Beware of spoilers
The turtles have their own MySpace pages.
The film's Wikipedia page.
Fans liked it more than critics at Rotten Tomatoes.
The video game.
Variety's review.
And one from The Village Voice.
Ryan at Reel Opinions weighs in, as does Scott at Cinematical.
Check out the original comic books.

Amazing Grace
2007, in theaters

You should know
We’re going on 24 years of religious ties, here. I know the song. I know the story behind the song. Frankly, I was expecting the movie to be about the story behind the song. It’s not. That turned out to be OK. Even better: since I saw the movie with Brian, I got a crash course in the history and workings of Parliament.

So?
William Wilberforce, a former parishioner and student of John Newton – the man who wrote the hymn, and a former slaver – is a member of Parliament and a devout Christian. However can he both serve God and support his friend’s run for Prime Minister? Gee, I wonder if the fact that his old minister is a staunch abolitionist will have any influence.

Anything else I say about the plot would be a) a spoiler, b) fairly obvious, and c) a matter of historical record, so I’m not going to get into that. Despite all this, I was intrigued by the story. It’s a political movie as much as a morality tale, so many of the characters are more morally ambiguous than you’d expect – like in real life, and especially like in politics – but there’s more that can be done with this. Wilberforce was addicted to laudanum, and it’s brushed off as evidence that he’s a good man! After all, if he didn’t care so much, he wouldn’t have stomach problems, blah blah blah. Then he gives it up cold turkey, survives the DTs, and is never tempted again.

(Aside: Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying drug addiction makes one a bad person. But it can lead to a desperation that we just didn’t see in this film.)

There is a bit of timeline-jumping early on that threw me, and seemed a bit unnecessary, so be wary of that. Also, a few of Wilberforce’s abolitionist friends seem to look similar. Then again, so do the MPs, because there are only so many things you can do with a powdered wig.

Finally, Brian noticed that in one of the flashbacks, Parliament is arguing over the downside of surrendering to the American Revolutionaries -- three years after they already did. An oops moment, to be sure, but I never would have caught it. Furthermore, one of Wilberforce's opponants, the Duke of Clarence, was never an MP -- especially not in the House of Commons.

Rating
See it if…
…You like history, politics, or religion. Likewise, avoid it if you hate those things, or if you hate non-linear storytelling. This is a fine film, and my complaints outlined above are pretty much the only ones I had.

The rest of the Internet
The IMDb page.
More on John Newton.
Good reviews at Rotten Tomatoes.
Salon is favorable.
Here's what Wilberforce really looked like.
As to the spiritual aspect, Christianity Today has input.
Chris Beaumont at Film School Rejects liked but didn't love the film.
A review -- complete with historical commentary -- at Blogcritics.

Ghost Rider
2007, in theaters

You should know
Dan had had a bad week, so he got to choose the movie. Brian came along as well. Ghost Rider is a comic franchise none of us were familiar with going in, though Dan researched it on Wikipedia.

So?
Say it with me: It’s a comic book movie. It’s not Guernica. You have to have reasonable expectations going in.

Frankly, I was expecting crap. I’d read some bad reviews, and what little I knew about the Ghost Rider franchise gave me pause. After all, motorcycles? Guys with their heads on fire?

On the other hand, motorcycles! Guys with their heads on fire! These are the very elements of mindless entertainment. As I told Brian: “If nothing else, stuff will blow up.”

“Mindless” is the key. Both plot and characterization lacked, but neither was nonexistent. The pacing actually was the part I found least believable – Johnny Blaze went from Point A to Point B in three days? And managed to convince and sway Roxanne (and her boobs) and the Caretaker in the meantime?

I had fun. Ultimately, I think Ghost Rider will be on par with Daredevil in my personal movie rankings – fun to watch on the big screen, but not memorable or particularly worthy of a second viewing.

Rating
Mind your expectations
If you go in hoping for a lot, you’ll be disappointed. If you go in thinking it’ll be total drivel, you might be pleasantly surprised.

The rest of the Internet
Two reviews at Blogcritics.
The IMDb breakdown.
The reviews weren't great at Rotten Tomatoes.
Johnny Blaze's profile in the Marvel Directory.
An essay about the adaptation of Ghost Rider from comic to movie at Comic Book Resources.
A good review at Tom's MAD blog.
D. K. Holm at Quick Stop Entertainment was less impressed.

And just for kicks: Ghostwriter!