New in Town

I can say this plainly enough: I am a movie addict. I wish I was a movie snob, that my preferences and predilections were strong enough to surpass the lure of a film I have yet to see. This is getting better as I age and become pickier in other areas, but I'm still a bit of a sucker in the movie department. This is why I finally watched New in Town this past weekend.

Boy, have I been dreading this movie. Renee Zellweger is just the worst thing to ever happen to a leading role. Yes, I liked Bridget Jone's Diary. IN SPITE of Renee. Whose bright idea was it to make her run through London in her underwear? Why does she always squint her eyes and purse her lips? Maybe I just don't like her in Bridget Jone's Diary. Has she been in anything else? Cold Mountain, you say?
I'm sorry, I was distracted by Nicole Kidman. Chicago, you mention? I'm sorry, I was distracted by Catherine Zeta Jones.
Me, Myself, and Irene, you offer? I'm sorry, I was distracted by Jim Carrey's mouth.
OH, and Harry Connick Jr.???!!!?!?! Do NOT get me started. When this movie first came out, I mentally threw it in the "tired romantic comedy starring tired has-been millionaires" category and avoided it like a 20 page paper.

But Netflix finally sucked me in. I watched a scary movie and needed something brainless to take the edge off. Excuses, excuses. This is what I mean about my will being too weak to keep my film snobbery in tact.

Thankfully, the movie surprised me. The gist: Renee's character is from corporate America and is coming to a small town in Minnesota to lay off half of a factory's workers so that plant operations can be mechanized. While in the typical small cold town Hollywood always paints as the keeper of all that is good and wholesome about America, Renee learns valuable lessons ranging from proper footwear for subzero temperatures to the importance of a good pistachio pudding recipe. So yeah, it was annoying, but it was more about fighting for what you believe in than it was about a cutesy love story.

Hear me correctly; you will have to stomach Renee's lingerie being flown on a car stereo antenna in an ice storm, but those moments are mercifully sparse. The film was saved by its remaining cast, its writers, and most of all the director.
Siobhan Fallon and J.K. Simmons are witty and charming, with a Fargo flair that makes you laugh unexpectedly. There's also this wonderful part where Harry Conick Jr. gets shot in the ass. That gets at least one thumb up from me automatically.

Should you watch it? Meh. This is hard for me to gauge, and depends entirely on your own preferences. I know at least five people who will disagree with my estimation of the film. But they are also grown women who own (and I believe still play with)dolls. Which type of woman would you find more in common with? That's probably the best gauge I can provide on this one.

If you're like me, and DEFINITELY if you are any kind of heterosexual male, do NOT watch the film. Watch Fargo for the humor, The Cider House Rules or any Law and Order for J.K. Simmons, and mid-90's SNL for Siobhan Fallon. This one's good!

Tin Man

Right, so this was a trippy movie. It's technically a three episode miniseries providing a unique twist on the Wizard of Oz theme that was aired on the Sci-Fi channel in 2007. The cast was actually wonderful, with lots of familiar faces (the main one for me being Zooey Deschanel) that portrayed their classic characters creatively. "DG", the movie's "Dorothy" character was particularly refreshing in her reaction to dire situations. I also found the plot to be creative, if a bit out there. I mean come on folks, the show was made for the Sci Fi channel. Things are going to be weird.

The iconic motifs of the Wizard of Oz were all included, but in a random order; there were definitely trees that threw apples, but they weren't anywhere near the discovery of the tin man. That sort of thing was refreshing. I also loved the coloring of the film, which also seemed an homage to the original. The palette was richly saturated with unbelievable blues and greens and dark scenes that surpassed normal moodiness.



But enough praise.

There is no reason for this show to be four and a half hours long. Jigga What??? I could not believe how much time we spent in the Sorcerer's castle - it was straight up an hour! And there was so much running through woods and along creeks, searching under stones and over hill and dale and oh sorry I fell asleep. The other huge failing for Tin Man is its CGI effects. Do you remember watching Wishbone after school? That's the kind of graphics I'm talking about. It just had no place next to the kind of acting we got glimpses of (I don't think any actor could be on his game all the time with that junk going down). Maybe it's too much to ask for on a cable channel's budget. I just had high hopes.

Finally, what's the point of calling this Tin Man? Yes, it's quirky and drew me in. So there you have it, don't you? That's the point. But it had no special emphasis on the Tin Man, which dissapointed me tremendously. I was looking forward to an exploration of a sub character, and I think Wizard of Oz gives plenty of depth to the Tin Man for a spin off mini series. I must be silly to think a movie named after a character will be about that character. The movie is mocking me right now, laughing at me for making such an assumption.

Should you see it? I'm going to have to say no on this one, unless you have nothing to do for a quarter of the wakeful portion of your day. You know it's got some bad qualities if a movie enthusiast like myself is giving it the nix.

Toy Story 3

This past week I went to Indy and had the best vacation of all - time with my sister, bro in law, and two nephews! It can't get much better than that. Sebastian's first day of school was yesterday, so Friday we had a great day of Indy Adventure to round out the summer. We started at the Indy Museum of Art, , then went bowling, and finished with none other than Toy Story 3.

Much to S's chagrin, I wasn't able to find the 3d version playing, but we decided to settle on the old school version anyway. I'm glad we did!

This is a new movie, and I try not to spoil anything that's less than a year old. This means I'll mostly "ooh and ahh" and encourage you to see it.

I always enjoy trilogies with consistent casting and believable story lines. This doesn't always happen with cartoons (okay - Pixar), which would have shot TS3 in the foot with such iconic voices as Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Wallace Shawn, John Ratzenberger, Estelle Harris, and Joan Cusack in the past casts. Fortunately, everyone returned and new gems like Ned Beatty, Michael Keaton, and Laurie Metcalf joined the ranks.


The rest of the movie was just as flawlessly completed as the casting. All that Pixar can achieve is easy to undervalue, and I think Disney realizes that. Do you remember when you watched the first Toy Story? How amazed you were by the crispness of the image, the believability of the characters, and the intriguing story line? There has to be more to draw you in, time after time after time.

Disney has a way of doing that. The story line shifted just enough to draw everyone in. The basic premise: Andy's going to college, and the toys aren't coming with. What happens to our childhood when we move away from it?



I also loved how approachable the movie was to all ages. The children were laughing, I was laughing, the grandparents were laughing. And then there were these surprising moments where you got choked up, or were reminded of a page in your life that turned, of the importance of belonging to something bigger than yourself, of being committed.

Any time a movie surprises me I enjoy it. I think you will too! I give this two high fives, and encourage you to give it a gander - even if you don't have awesome nephews like I do.