Little Red Riding Hood walks into Grandma’s house and goes through the whole, “What big ears you have” bit with the Big Bad Wolf who’s trying to impersonate Granny.  The Wolf finally jumps out of the bed to attack Little Red.  Granny hops out of the closet, all trussed up and a giant woodsman with an axe comes bursting through the window.  Then things become much different from the fairy tale that we remember.

I rented the movie Hoodwinked today, based on a preview that I saw in the video store.  I had encountered it on the shelf and even picked it up, but ultimately decided not to get it.  Until I saw the trailer.  It’s a wonderfully clever bit of silliness that had me laughing throughout.

The police of the Woods show up at Granny’s house (called, no doubt, because of all the screaming that was going on).  Each of the four primary characters (Little Red, Granny, the Wolf, and the Woodsman) end up telling his own part of the story of how he managed to end up at Granny’s house.  The stories all intersect in many different ways, and all have to do with trying to find the Goodie Bandit who is robbing all of the goodie shops of their recipies.

Shawn Edwards of Fox-TV is quoted as saying that Hoodwinked is, “the funniest animated movie since Shrek.”  That’s not saying much, considering that Shrek was dreck.  Hoodwinked ranks up there with Monsters, Inc. as a great film that’s fun for all ages.

Hoodwinked works because it’s a fun story well told.  The film makers concentrated on the story rather than on the medium.  The animation is good, but it’s not cutting edge.  The sets (backgrounds) are simple–just complex enough to be useful, but not gratuitous.  The focus is on the characters and the story–especially the story.  And very little in the film fails to move the story along.

I’m quite impressed with the way that Hoodwinked was done, and I’ll almost certainly add it to my movie collection.  If nothing else than to replay the singing goat part from time to time.  That was an absolute scream.  I give the movie my highest recommendation.  Grab a bowl of popcorn and sit back to enjoy a laugh.

In the movie Hitch, Will Smith plays Alex ‘Hitch’ Hitchens, the “Date Doctor.”  Hitch’s job is to coach men on how to get noticed by and successfully date women.  Although the basic flow of the movie is straight out of the romantic comedy playbook, the content was original, funny, and very cleverly put together.  And to think they did it without resorting to fart jokes, nudity, excessive profanity, or sexual innuendo.  There are some references to sex, but it’s not at all overpowering.

The movie opens with a monologue by Hitch, explaining “basic principles,” while he coaches various men in courting the women of their dreams.  Scenes of Hitch with his clients are mixed with scenes of the clients with the women:  getting noticed, the first date, the first kiss, etc.  Then it jumps quickly into the primary story, which has two parts that become entertwined:  Hitch helping his client Albert (an overweight, insecure bumbler) attract a beautiful and rich heiress, and Hitch meeting and falling for a gossip columnist who, as one might expect, often writes about the heiress.

As I said, the movie follows the basic romantic comedy plot:  they meet, start to become attached, have an argument that surely will destroy the relationship, and then everything comes out okay in the end.  Unlike most romantic comedies, though, Hitch maintains an upbeat tone even when things get bad.  It also maintains the comedy throughout the film, with very few belly laughs but an almost continual stream of mild chuckles that anybody who has been involved in dating as an adult can appreciate.

I half expected the movie to devolve into a battle of the sexes with man bashing and woman hating jokes throughout.  That didn’t happen.  There is one stereotypical woman hating playboy and a few somewhat cynical jokes thrown in, but mostly it was a light hearted and fun movie.  Pop it into the DVD player, sit on the couch with your spouse, and enjoy it along with some popcorn.  It really is entertaining.

Debra and I just got back from seeing The Incredibles at the theatre.  This is the new Pixar animated movie that I’ve been waiting on for a year.  It didn’t disappoint.  It’s brilliant.

What happens when two superheros get married and try to raise a “normal” family, putting away the superhero outfits for the mundane suburban life?  The movie is well written, the animation is superb, the soundtrack is spot on.  I couldn’t find any faults in the movie.  It’s the best film I’ve seen since Monsters, Inc.

Although the movie is animated, it’s not really for kids.  No doubt that kids will enjoy it, but I’m pretty sure the movie was written primarily for adults.  I don’t want to say too much about the film, because I’d hate to spoil it for you.  Go see it.  It’s absolutely wonderful.

I’ve spent the last four days suffering from either a terrible cedar allergy attack, or some sort of flu.  There’s not much to do when I’m feeling that way.  Read a mindless novel, surf the Web, or watch old movies is about the extent of my mental capabilities when my head’s pounding and I’m hacking and wheezing.  And if that’s not bad enough, it plays hell with my bicycle training schedule.

Today I finally sat down and watched The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, the last of the Clint Eastwood/Sergio Leone “spaghetti Westerns.”  I picked up all three of them (A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More are the other two) in a set at Target a couple of months back.  I’d seen all three of them before, of course, but it’d been years.  Having now watched all three of them again, I’ve gained a new appreciation for what Leone did with these three movies:  he redefined the Western.  Prior to the release of A Fistful of Dollars, most Westerns featured a protagonist who was just too good to be true.  The movies were full of moral lessons and sugar coating that made the West look like a civilized place that was just a little bit dirty.  Leone’s interpretation is, I think, much closer to reality.

Of the three movies, I liked the second one (For a Few Dollars More) the best.  The addition of Lee Van Cleef works, and many of the rough spots from the first film were worked out.  The last film, The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, was too long, a little too silly in places, and overdid it with the “spooky” sound effects and music.  I realize that the characters in all three movies were somewhat over the top, but they were too far over the top in the last movie.  All in all, they’re still wonderful movies, and well worth having in your collection.

Debra and I spent a quiet morning of reflection and gift unwrapping, followed by lunch with friends and a trip to the theatre to take in The Return of the King.  Did you know that Christmas day is one of the biggest days of the year for movie theatres?  Debra picked up the tickets a couple of days in advance, so we were able to walk in without standing outside in the cold.  Even so, 30 minutes before the start of the movie we were unable to find two adjacent seats except right up in the first three rows.

The movie, by the way, is absolutely fantastic.  It’s beautifully rendered, the special effects are outstanding, and the battle sequences had me on the edge of my seat.  Somehow they managed to include all that action and keep it interesting throughout.  I had high expectations after seeing the first two films, and this one didn’t disappoint.  I was totally blown away.

I picked up the movie S1M0NE at Blockbuster on Friday.  I remember seeing trailers for this last summer, but it was in and out of the theatres so fast that I didn’t have time to see it.  When it finally came out on DVD, it seemed to be rented the few times I remembered to look for it.  The guy at the rental counter told me once that the movie didn’t do well at the box office, but it’s been a steady rental since it appeared on DVD.

To recap the movie:  Al Pacino plays Victor Tranasky, an obscure movie director (both he and his movies are obscure) who’s had his fill of temperamental actors.  A nutcase computer hacker who loves those movies creates a virtual actor computer program.  Then he dies and leaves his program to Victor.  Victor uses the program to create Simone, who stars in his film and becomes an overnight sensation:  doing video interviews, photo spreads in Playboy, etc.  Initially, Victor is delighted and somewhat amused by the reclusive Simone’s stardom, but soon it begins to affect his life.  For example, in one scene a woman wants to sleep with Victor in an attempt “to be closer to Simone.”  It all unravels in the end, of course, but I’ll not spoil it for you.

I thought the movie was brilliantly done.  It’s funny, and touching, and takes great big swipes at popular culture and the whole business of celebrity.  Al Pacino’s performance was dead on–I can’t imagine anybody else being cast for the role.  I can understand why the movie didn’t do well in the theatres, though.  It probably hits a little too close to home for many people, by pointing out (without actually saying it) how ridiculous it is to idolize movie stars and pop singers, and by making people realize just how easy it would be to do something like this:  dupe the entire world by creating an entirely fictitious “person.”

The movie really is quite good.  I highly recommend it.

Debra and I watched The Terminator and Terminator 2 last night on VHS in preparation for this morning’s trip to the theatre for the most recent episode.  If nothing else, Terminator 3 definitely is a Terminator movie:  lots of action and cool special effects with just enough plot and drama (but not too much) to make it a semi-coherent story.  I’m real tolerant when it comes to action movies, but this one had a few major bloopers that should have been caught before being released to the general public.

Early on in the movie, TX (the most advanced Terminator type) controls a posse of emergency vehicles for the first big chase.  How does she gain control?  Nanotechnology, of course.  Sorry, but I couldn’t buy it.  It still takes physical force to turn the wheel, and some kind of camera or other sensing device to see where they’re going.  Watching driverless police cars and ambulances hurtle through the streets was too much.

Late in the movie the two lead characters are going to fly a private plane (it looks like a Cessna 172) north to attack the Skynet central core.  The airplane itself is prominently featured during the encounter in the hanger, and any pilot will notice and remember the airplane’s tail number:  N3035C.  When they finally escape the hanger and take off, the camera zooms in on the airplane in flight:  a blue and white Cessna 172 with tail number N3937F.

In one sense, these and similar bloopers are minor matters when compared with the major hurdle of time travel.  But I can accept the possibility of time travel for the sake of an escapist action movie as long as ordinary everyday things work like I know and expect them to.  I won’t say that it ruined the movie for me–I still enjoyed it–but these things did jar me out of the fantasy.  And that’s something no story (regardless of the medium) should ever do.

I find it difficult to believe that Debra and I just sat through In the Bedroom on DVD.  My first (printable) response after the movie was over is “You’ve got to be kidding me.”  That pile of brooding incoherent disconnected images was nominated for 8 Academy Awards and countless “lesser” distinctions?  How could anybody in that film be nominated for anything other than Best Comatose Performance?

I’ve long known that film critics and I rarely agree when it comes to drama, what with our widely differing opinions of such drivel as The Last Emperor, My Dog Skip, The Thin Red Line, and Titanic.  But until recently I thought perhaps I just didn’t get it.  I’ve finally realized, though, that  if you think of films like In the Bedroom as THE ROYAL NONESUCH, and film critics as the citizens of that little Arkansas town in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, then things make a lot more sense.

In the Bedroom is yet another film that suffers from (among many other things) the deadly sin of taking itself seriously.  Don’t waste your time or your money.

Debra came back from the video store with Eight Legged Freaks, a modern day big bug movie in the same vein as Them and Tarantula.  It was predictably terrible, but then what do you expect from a movie starring David Arquette?

Included on the DVD, though, was the original short film, Larger Than Life, which writer/director Ellory Elkayem presented at the Telluride Film Festival and that eventually got him the contract for Eight Legged Freaks.  Larger Than Life is a wonderfully well done short film, shot in black and white,  featuring just four actors and a handful of creepy-crawlies.  It, too, is predictable, but it has a certain charm (and remarkable brevity) that makes it worth watching.  I wouldn’t say that the short film is worth the DVD rental, but if you run across it in somebody’s collection take the time to plug it in and watch Larger Than Life.

Debra and I went to see The Bourne Identity this afternoon.  I expected a reasonably good spy thriller, and the reviews were mostly positive.  I was pleasantly surprised.  I won’t say that everything in the movie was perfect, but they got a whole lot more right than they did wrong.  Matt Damon does an excellent job in the starring role, and Franka Potente does similarly well in the female lead.  Of course, the movie can’t stay even close to the book, but the general idea is there.  It’s not a must-see, but a good spy thriller.  It even has a fun car chase through the streets of Paris in which not one single car explodes.  Amazing.  Too bad they didn’t get the person who edited the movie to approve the design of the web site.  Most annoying, that.