Premonition

Sometimes I have to go through a few bad movies to find a good one. This is one of the bad ones. And don't read on if you prefer not to know the details. Oh yeah, and I spoil the ending which is totally predictable.

This is a movie about inconsistencies. But there are so many inconsistencies in the film I was unable to focus on the supposed happy ending. And if you think changing the circumstances under which someone dies IS a happy ending, then you may actually like this. I personally don't see it, didn't feel it, and don't recommend it.

Sandra Bullock plays a depressed housewife who has incredibly vivid dreams or premonitions about the death of her husband. As the movie progresses Bullock's character tries to take control of the specific circumstances and even prevent the death. While she slightly alters some of the things going on in her husband's head, Bullock's character actually ends up causing the death. Oh yeah, there, I spoiled it.

I think I will stop now before I incur the wrath of the die-hard Sandra Bullock fans.

Watch this with someone who is far less cynical than I, who will enjoy this movie as a 2-box tear jerker. Or not.

Juno

This movie was nothing like I expected. It was much better. Unlike most movies, the good stuff is not all in the trailers. There are dozens of surprises; great movie one-liners, sage parental wisdom, and teen-speak that will add new expressions to pop culture the same way Napoleon Dynamite did, or Caddyshack for you older readers.

I love it when a small-budget indy film gets nominated for an Oscar. When they are nominated for 4 and win 1, it must churn the stomachs of the Hollywood decision makers. The Best Writing Oscar was well deserved here. The dialogue is fantastic. And after all, this is a dialogue movie.

If you liked Napoleon Dynamite, you will most likely love this movie. Totally different stories, don't get me wrong. Both are great teen angst movies very well done; sometimes very painful to watch, quite often painfully funny.

Watch this movie with someone who will not be offended by the blunt, pretentious, irreverent language. And, be up on your slang, or you may miss some of the funniest bits.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

Here is another, certainly older, movie with major star power in the cast. And it is probably the very first movie I ever saw in a theater.

Legendary director John Ford had James Stewart and John Wayne working together for the first time. Add to this Lee Marvin, Edmond O'Brien, Andy Devine, John Carradine, Woody Strode, and Denver Pyle, and you have a wonderful un-western western. Vera Miles was still fairly early in her voluminous career of five decades when this movie was made.

This movie is no so much about the old west as it is about personal friendships and the early politics of frontier America. This story is only a western in that it has cowboys in it, and is set in a theoretical wild west town of Shinbone somewhere in the area surrounding southeastern Colorado.

As were many movies at the time, this was shot in black and white. It is a classic of it's genre and should be viewed by any serious film student or fan of cinema. The basic story has been used over and over. This one has a multi-layered plot that should keep the literary-minded among you satisfied.

If you don't like westerns, you should still consider this for it's integrity moral and political spin.

Watch it with someone who may or may not know how great these now old actors were in the prime of their careers.

Lions for Lambs

"Nowhere else have I seen such lions lead by such lambs..." Quoting a German General from World War I, Robert Redford's university professor character compares former students of his volunteering to join the army to fight the war on terror. Hence the title. It is not a political statement.

If nothing else, this movie had star power. Robert Redford directed and starred along with Meryl Streep, and Tom Cruise. There were also some relatively new faces like Michael Peña (the locksmith from Crash) who I think is very very good and should be offered and take more stereotypical roles.

Now, to the story itself. This is neither a pro or con movie in my mind. It was given lots of press at the time but I believe it does fair and balanced service to all sides of a very complex issue. Cruise represents the right. Redford represents the left. Streep represents the press that gets caught in the middle. Each is faced with black and white choices in a very grey world.

I liked this movie as much for what it does as what it does not do. It cleverly covers a slice of time, in this case about a hour, from three very different places in the world. In each case, two people are having a very personal conversation. This format is not unique to this movie, but it is so well done that unless you are paying very close attention you may not even realize it. Because each conversation is so connected to the other conversations it is easy to forget that three different stories are being told. Well done Mr. Redford.

What this movie does not do is go over the top or out of bounds in any one area. It is not too long. If anything, it is about 20 minutes too short. You get to see an ending to only a third of the story and are left to wonder about the other two-thirds. That is perhaps by design. Leaving us to our on conclusions is an option, but not for everyone in this story.

Watch this movie with someone who has either seen action in the war on terror, worked in Washington, DC, been to college, or worked in media.