I finally made it Harry Potter last night.  And I will write about that next.  But I have a major beef to air, and since this blog is called Rac's Rants, here is a rant.

Tim and I love to go to movies.  Our similar taste in movies makes it something we really enjoy to do together.  We are willing to fork out the dough to go to a good movie theater with excellent sound and assigned seats so we can have the best viewing experience possible.  One of the factors in a good viewing experience is not having our kids with us.  Of course, we take our kids to movies that are meant for kids, because it's a fun family experience.  But even at those movies, when our 2-year-old has had it and starts to get noisy, we take him out of the theater.  But we NEVER bring them along to a grown-up movie.

Last night, I called around until I found a babysitter so Tim and I could to Harry Potter 7.2.  I didn't purchase my tickets until I had actually found a babysitter.  This way, there was no chance that we'd be stuck with movie tickets and 2 little boys with nowhere to go.  Apparently, this is not how everyone does things.  When we got to the theater and had settled into our seats, a couple walked in with what looked like a 2-year-old and maybe a 4-year-old.  They were sitting in the row ahead of us.  Groan.  Then another couple walked in with a baby that was probably around 8 months old and ended up directly in front of us.  Double groan.  Here is why I think it is wrong to bring little kids to a PG-13 movie at 7:30 at night.

1.  Those of us who are paying babysitters at home did so so we wouldn't have to listen to kids whine and cry and kick the seats.  When the baby in front of us started to fuss, the mom nursed the baby for about 5 minutes to calm her down.  And then she kept fussing. So they gave her a toy to cheer her up, which she did, and then she was making happy noises.  But fussing and happy noises are both NOISES.  And we got to hear those noises for the first 20 minutes of the movie before Tim said, "That baby's got to go out," and they finally removed her from our row, and took her to the end of the row, where she continued to make noise.  The parents didn't completely remove her from the theater until about halfway through the movie.  It is EXTREMELY distracting to have a baby crying.  It interrupts any kind of mood the movie is creating.

2.  News Flash: Some movies aren't appropriate for little kids.  Harry Potter was one of those movies.  That 13 at the end of the rating should be an indicator to parents that the movie isn't aimed at toddlers.  And every time we go to a PG-13 movie, even at 8pm, there are little kids all over the place.  When we went to Star Wars: Episode III, there was a little girl that was about 5 sitting next to me.  She was terrified and cried the whole time, and her dad refused to take her out.  He just said to her, "Oh, don't be scared.  It's not real."  Yeah, that helped.  The same thing happened when we went to see Spiderman 2, and Doc Octopus was taking out the entire hospital staff.  There was a row of 3and 4-year-old boys in front of us, and they were whimpering and crying, and none of the adults with them would let them leave.  I'm not sure what's going through those parents' heads, but as an outside observer, it just looks selfish.  You wouldn't want to miss part of your movie just so your kids can have relief from the terror they're experiencing because you refused to get a babysitter, right?  Last night, every time something scary happened, I worried about those little girls sitting in front of us.  It's none of my business to tell other people how to raise their kids, but when those kids are screaming and the parents aren't doing anything about it, it ticks me off.

3.  It's just rude.  There is a huge effort going on to get people to turn off their cell phones, and it seems to be working.  People are turning them off.  So why isn't there an effort to get kids out of adult movies?  It is even more distracting to have a toddler screaming her head off next to you or a baby crying or a 6-year-old kicking your seat than to have someone's cell phone go off for a few seconds (although that's still lame).  There are plenty of kids' movies out right now.  If you're going to a movie as a family, why not see a family movie?  If you can't find a babysitter, wait until you can.  If you can't afford a sitter, arrange a trade with friends so you both get to see the movie without your kids.

The theater we went to in Mississippi had a policy that wouldn't allow children under the age of 10 (or maybe even 13) into PG-13 movies after 7pm.  It was the best idea I've ever seen.  I knew that if I went to a grown-up movie, I'd be watching it with grown-ups.  Maybe we can encourage that same policy in our theaters here. Who's with me?

Movie Time (and a little TV, too, because, why not?)

It has been a busy time.  Birthday parties, weddings, Fathers' Day, house guests, and all the clean-up that goes into those activities has kept me off the blog for a while.  As a result, you get blurbs about a bunch of stuff I wanted to mention.  Here goes:

Alice in Wonderland Meh.  I remember walking out of a movie last year and seeing a giant poster of Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter, and I was disappointed to find out that I had to wait almost a year to see him in Alice in Wonderland.  When Tim Burton and Johnny Depp joined forces for Edward Scissorhands, it was genius.  They have a history of creativity and quirkiness that I was looking forward to in Alice.  However, I was disappointed.  The story wasn't all that compelling, the girl that played Alice was kind of blah, and I found both queens really annoying.  So, thumbs down from me on that one. 

Toy Story 3 Maybe I was disappointed with Alice in Wonderland because I had just seen this movie.  Wow.  I feel like where Disney is involved, they are fortunate if a sequel isn't super duper awful.  And I made the mistake of watching The Little Mermaid III, which was not only awful, but barf worthy.  So thank heavens for Pixar.  Toy Story came out when I was a freshman in college, and, like the rest of the world, I fell in love with Woody, Buzz, Ham, Potato Head and Slinky Dog.  Toy Story 2 was a pleasant surprise, and endeared me to Jesse and Bullseye as well.  After 2 extremely successful movies, I was skeptical that the third would measure up.  I worried that the writers would just recycle the last two movies and it would end the trilogy in a huge let down.  NOT SO.  Not only was it just as funny (if not funnier) as the first two, it was sweet and heart-warming and original.  It had my 5-year-old laughing hysterically, my mom rolling in the aisles, and me giggling quite a lot.  And it had me getting a little misty.  Okay, a lot misty.  At least 3 times.  It is one of those movies I'm not dreading to watch 500 times when we get it on DVD for the kids.  Two enthusiastic thumbs up.  Fine summer fun.

The Buffy/Angel Vampirepalooza It's summer.  Summer=crappy TV.  I have one TV show recording on my DVR right now that's not for Jacob.  Ugh.  So hooray for Netflix streaming.  I was browsing the Netflix instant selections on the website and came across the TV show Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and, on a whim, added all 7 seasons.  And for good measure, I also found Angel and added all 5 seasons.  So now I get my David Boreanez fix.  I decided to watch Buffy because I remembered being in college when it came out, and I'm pretty sure it was on a night I was out playing with my friends, so I missed the whole phenomenon.  Here's what I think so far:  Creepy demons with extra cheese is just what this summer ordered.  The first 3 seasons of Buffy are her high school years, and mostly consist of a Great Evil threatening the annhilation of mankind and Buffy and her pals kicking evil's butt.  Angel, a vampire with a soul, skulks around and gives the gang little nuggets of information that is usually the key to vanquishing the demons.  Plus he's Buffy's boyfriend, except when he turns evil and kills and tortures her friends.  Then Buffy goes to college and Angel leaves for LA, because things just aren't working out with the Buffster.  (Can we say spin-off?)  The college years are a bit skankified on Buffy, but Spike enters the scene and provides hilarity and amusement.  As for Angel, the series, I'm thoroughly enjoying it.  It's a little more dark and brooding, but has great story lines and fun characters.  All in all, it's making my summer a little more fun.  Whee!

That's it for now.  Time to hand off the computer to my hubby. 

Not so grumpy today

Wow, I was in a bad mood when I posted last. Sorry. I had been in the car all day. So how about if I do a cheerful post today?

We just switched to DirecTV, because, as much as we loved Dish Network, they didn't offer the Mtn (that whole can of worms is for a day when I'm grumpy again). When we switched, they gave us a few months of the movie channels, and I've been doing a ton of recording. It has provided me with the opportunity to see a few movies I'd forgotten I liked. I came across "Stardust" a few weeks ago and was reminded what a fantastic movie it is.

Here's what I liked about it (I like lists):

Warning, spoiler alert.
1) The fact that the hottest guy in the movie (Rupert Everett) gets shoved out a window in the first 5 minutes of the movie, and spends the rest of the movie with his face smashed in.
2) The fact that one of the most beautiful women ever (Michelle Pfeifer) is an old hag that gets uglier every minute of the movie.
3) The ghost brothers with their gruesome fatal injuries (like the one with an axe in the head) that pop in and out of every scene and comment on what's happening in a jolly and good-natured manner.
4) Robert di Nero in drag, dancing the can-can.
5) The fight with the voodoo doll/dead prince and the evil hag. So funny.
6) The story lines that converge into a great and exciting conclusion. That's my favorite kind of movie. You know, the kind where you're wondering how it could possibly all work out, and then it does.

I read the book last week, and decided that, as fun as the book is, it's missing a lot of my favorite elements (no drag queen pirate captain, no Rupert Everett, no voodoo doll fight). Some books, as great as the story is, are better as movies. I feel the same way about "Sense and Sensibility" and "North and South." I'm not sure if it's because I saw the movie first and loved it, making the book doomed in my estimation, or if it's just that the actors and the way the screenplay was written exceeded the book. I do know that the movie version of "North and South" has Richard Armitage in it, and that's pretty much all you need to top the book. Plus the book is super wordy. "Stardust," the novel, wasn't nearly as funny as the movie. At the end of the book I didn't feel like the characters had gone on any kind of an adventure. The movie was action-packed and still managed to fit all the comedy in.

In conclusion, you really should watch this movie. No matter how annoyed you are, or tired, or grumpy, you'll feel better after you watch it. I think I'm going to watch it again tomorrow while I do laundry.

The Mayor of Casterbridge

My Netflix list is about 200 movies long, and the Netflix website is SUPER slow. I get on there when a movie I wanted to see in the theater but didn't because I just couldn't justify paying a babysitter plus the 8 bucks for the ticket because it wasn't a "big screen" necessity comes out on DVD. Did you follow that? I put that DVD at the top of my queue, and while I'm there, bump a few others I'm in the mood to watch up there as well. So if I don't get on there for a while, I get a surprise in the mail! This week I was surprised with "The Mayor of Casterbridge," starring Ciaran Hinds. I read the book when I was 19 or 20, so my memory of the story was a bit hazy, but I remembered liking it a lot. I didn't have high expectations for the miniseries, despite the cast, because it was made for TV and no one had told me anything about it at all. I was captivated from the opening scene to the final credits. The music, the cinematography (sp?), and the acting came together to tell Thomas Hardy's story in a miniseries that was moving and beautiful.

The story opens with a young couple and small baby arriving at a market day fair. They stop in a tent for a meal, which ends up being a sort of soup, which, for a little extra cash, can be laced with rum. The husband drinks bowl after bowl of laced soup, and ends up auctioning off his wife and baby to a passing sailor. 20 years later, that wife and daughter appear at the same fair, inquiring after Michael Henchard, who has become mayor of Casterbridge, has kept a vow of temperance for 20 years, and is the richest and most successful corn merchant in the county. They are reunited, but keep his shameful past a secret from the town. However, his pride and stubborness reappear after a business rival arrives in town, and their lives are all affected by his selfish choices.

Thomas Hardy's specialty is finding a character flaw, in this case, pride, and illustrating how that flaw can lead to the ruin of relationships and a downward spiral of self worth. Henchard is described as a large, brooding, serious and sometimes dangerous man, and Ciaran Hinds embodies all of these characteristics in this production. Donald Farfrae, Henchard's Scottish rival, is played by James Purefoy (also seen in A Knight's Tale as the Prince). I enjoyed his acting, which was perfect, but I was also hypnotized by his Scottish accent. The rest of the cast was also great, although I think they could have done a bit better in casting Elizabeth Jane. She looked like she was on the brink of tears the entire movie. I know it's a tragic story, but there are happy parts, too.

The movie stayed true to the novel, which I found refreshing. Hardy's novels include so much description that anyone wanting to know details for costuming, casting, geography and dialogue can simply read the book and have all the information they need to make a good movie. It's amazing how rarely that actually happens. It was wonderful to watch a movie and think, "This is exactly how I pictured this when I read the book." The music was beautiful, and, more importantly, added to the movie, and didn't distract from the storytelling. (Have you seen Ladyhawke? Because that is an example of really bad music. Electric guitar while running towards a castle? Really?)

I highly recommend this one. I must warn you, though. It does not have a happy ending. It is not a good one to watch if you're depressed. It will make you cry like a little girl. But it is an excellent story and worth the emotional rollercoaster.

10 Must See Movies

Due to the incessent rain, I've spent a lot of time watching TV. There really isn't that much on right now. There are only so many episodes of Designed to Sell I can watch before I get bored with taupe paint and neutral drapes. And yes, there is always Wipeout, but it's only on once a week, so for the other 6 days, I'm out. I guessing I'm not alone in feeling this way. This is why I'm doing a list of my favorite movies for a rainy day. I'm keeping the list to 10, or this post would never be finished. These are my opinions, and, since everyone is entitled to their own opinions and tastes, you can ignore this list, or you can give these a try. I'm doing a countdown format, with my favorite at #1.

#10 Napoleon Dynamite Has the rain got you down? Are you feeling a little low? Do you need a good laugh? Or do you just need to reminisce about what you wore in high school? Take a ride with a true geek--awkward and loveable at the same time.

#9 X-Men Any of the movies will do. Who couldn't use a little Hugh Jackman in their life? Totally escapist fun.

#8 Return to Me I'm a cry baby. This movie makes me cry. But sometimes, on a cloudy day, a movie that brings out the tears is just the catharsis I need. And I only cry at the beginning and the end. The rest is funny and sweet and clean. It's like a little spot of sunshine in my gloomy day.

#7 The Office I know this is really a TV show, and not a movie, but it is as good as any movie out there, and if you have a chance, you should start from season 1 and watch all the seasons that are on DVD. I think the next season will be out very soon. Loads of laughs.

#6 Horatio Hornblower Ioan Gruffold has made it big these days as that guy in Fantastic Four (Mr. Fantastic?), but he started out in this series about a young officer that slowly finds his confidence in the British Royal Navy. There is a lot of sailor jargon (Aye aye cap'n!) and swashbuckling adventure. I think there are 8 different adventures altogether. Each one has a beginning and an end, so if you don't have 8 hours to sit around, you can watch one at a time and still feel satisfied.

#5 Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure I have suggested this at movie night time after time, and I just keep getting shot down! It may look goofy, ridiculous, immature, and downright silly, but that's because it is. And that's why it makes my rainy day list. There is nothing to think too hard about, or cry about, or talk about. It's about 2 guys who are failing history, are given one last chance to redeem themselves and save Ted from military school, and are given a phone booth time machine so they can pass history and save the world through their rock band, Wyld Stallions. I find it hilarious. And it's Keanu Reeves' finest work. After my dad saw this (which he laughed at, and he's a tough critic), he finally got why we kept saying, "Whoa" when we saw Keanu in other movies.

#4 Strictly Ballroom I love love love this movie. Take a clumsy, shy, bespectacled girl with bad skin and a smooth, fancy ballroom champion, put them together, and you've got a show. The flamboyant costumes, the clever dialogue (which is all extremely quotable, especially at ballroom competitions), the excellent acting and the sport of champions, and you have the perfect movie for a grey day.

#3 Lord of the Rings Pick one, any one. But maybe start at the beginning. Even if you're not a nerd like me, these are loads of fun. What's not to love about hobbits? And if you haven't seen these, you really should, just so you know what people are talking about. They're fantastic. And you can watch them with the spouse, because they appeal to both boys and girls.

#2 Pride and Prejudice, starring Colin Firth. If you haven't seen this one yet, please come borrow it from me. Yes, it's 5 hours long, but it's raining anyway, so you might as well watch something good and enjoy it! Great story, great romance, piano scene piano scene piano scene.

#1 North and South, starring Richard Armitage. Don't confuse this with the Civil War drama. This is a BBC production, it's British, and it's a period film. The best way I can describe it is a combination of Charles Dickens and Jane Austen. A young woman and her frail mother are uprooted by her father from their idyllic home in the south of England, where it's lush and green and beautiful, to the north, to an industrial town, full of smoke and soot and unhappy laborers. She becomes wrapped up in the union's struggle against the mill bosses, and romance and drama ensue. This is my #1 for a few reasons: 1) Richard Armitage 2) It's very well made, and long enough to get you through the rotten weather, and 3) Richard Armitage.

I own all of these movies, and if you are interested, pop by and borrow them. If not, what are your favorite rainy day movies? I can always welcome another good movie into my life!

Twilight: the Movie

Let me begin by saying that when I went to see the movie I was on very little sleep so I was feeling a bit loopy, and I had a stomach full of Mexican food, so I was very content. I was also among friends, which put me in a great mood, so I was more agreeable about things than if I'd gone with a stomach full of, say, badly made tuna casserole and was sitting by myself next to a really annoying person eating popcorn with her mouth wide open and opening really noisy candy during the movie.

I went to the movie with very low expectations. I figured it would be really sappy, really poorly made, and the acting would stink all around. I still wanted to see it, of course, and I was quite pleasantly surprised. If you have read the book, you know that the book is a romance novel full of teen angst and melodrama. You also know that it is aimed at girls around age 16. It follows that a movie based on the book, if it is going to be faithful to that book, will also be full of teen angst and melodrama, and be reminiscent of TV shows aimed at 16-year-old girls. And that's exactly what it was. My point is that the movie captured the mood of the book perfectly. I'm going to break down aspects of the movie to organize my opinion and how they compared to the book:

THE CAST:
I thought Kristen Stewart was perfect as Bella: twitchy, uncomfortable, pale, awkward around everyone. I admit after an hour of her twitching and fluttering eyelids I got a little annoyed, but then I remembered that it was how Bella was described, and I got over it. I thought she was excellent at expressing her disdain for the stupidity of the goofy teenagers that surrounded her, using just her facial expressions and body language.

Robert Pattinson was always a bit of a strange choice to me. I still think of him as Cedric Diggory (which was a perfect role for him, really), and I struggled to enjoy him as Edward throughout the movie. I thought his acting was fine, although I thought his voice was totally wrong. In the books, Edward's voice is described as velvety and hypnotic, and I thought Pattinson's was a little girly. He didn't seem as suave as I had imagined him, either. There were moments, however, that he managed to look dangerous and intense, and almost hot. For example, the scene in Port Angeles where he swoops in and rescues Bella from the creepy guys. He could pull it off in short spurts, but not through the whole movie.

I loved the kid who played Jacob (I can't remember his name now, but he was Sharkboy in the movie Sharkboy and Lavagirl). He is cute and has a brilliantly white smile. My concern is that he is kind of short and petite, and somehow they will have to make him super tall and brawny for the next movie. Hmmm...

I thought Charlie was perfect. Rough around the edges, abrupt with conversation, and a little bit country.

The kids at school were great. The girl who played Jessica was perfect, and all the other kids reminded me of kids I went to high school with. Mike was pretty over the top, but overall, I was pleased. It's like Harry Potter--their acting will improve with each movie. Remember Ron in the second Harry Potter movie? Yikes.

I thought the casting for Alice, Jasper, Dr. Cullen and Esme was perfect. Jasper looked a little too intense all the time, though. His eyes were constantly bugging out like someone was poking him in the bottom with a stick. But once he gets some lines, maybe he'll cool it a little and show a bigger range of facial expressions. I thought the girl that was cast as Rosalie was pretty, but not tragically beautiful. She wasn't anything like how I imagined her physically, but I thought her acting was good. Her evil glares at Bella were perfect. Emmett was also not at all how I imagined him. Too puny. I imagined someone much more beefy and intimidating. He didn't act intimidating at all. They both seemed like strange choices, but I'm guessing budgeting had a little to do with their choices in actors.

SPECIAL EFFECTS/COSTUMES/MAKEUP:
Okay, this is where it fell a bit short. It's not fair to a low budget movie to show an awesome preview for a high budget movie like Harry Potter right before it starts. I'm sure they did the best they could with the resources they had, but the shots of Edward jumping around in the trees were a bit laughable. Anything computer generated was jumpy and clearly not part of reality. Maybe all the money they made from Twilight will help out the special effects for New Moon. Let's hope so. The fight scenes and the vampires' superpowers should be spectacular, not laughable.

I thought the costumes were great. The high school kids didn't look overly trendy, just normal. I thought the vampires would look a little more superior than the kids than they did. I thought they fit in a little too much, but I don't really know that much about fashion, so that's all I really noticed.

The vampire makeup. Oh dear. Dr. Cullen looked like a mime with too much makeup caked on. Edward looked like he had gotten into his mom's lipstick. Sometimes the vampires' skin looked normal, and sometimes it looked like caked on makeup. There's got to be a better way to make them look pale. Edward's appearance in the sun was disappointing as well. It looked more like he was just kind of wet. So I'm hoping they'll get that worked out before New Moon wraps.

THE WRAP-UP
So it was a lot like an episode of 90210, with the longing glances and the melodrama ("Say it." "You're a vampire." Intense stare and deep breathing.), but I found it very enjoyable. I think they captured the main essence of the book, and, since I enjoyed the book, I enjoyed the movie. I think one of the things that I enjoyed was watching parts of the book and thinking, "That's just how I imagined it!" Of course, certain parts were changed or left out, and that's just how it goes when switching from one medium to another. Not everything in a book works well on the screen. I try not to analyze what is missing, just how well it flows and whether or not the story is the same. And it was. It was no Oscar winner, but it was a perfect girls' night out movie. It was clearly done on a smaller budget, and, with all the hype it's getting, I'm guessing that they will make enough to use more quality materials for the next movie. The only part of the movie that I really wish were different is the casting for Edward, and now that he's been in the first movie, that won't change for the next three. So, if you haven't been to see it, if you have read the book, you should give it a try. Just don't go expecting perfection. Go expecting a low-budget TV-episode-like drama that is fun and silly.

The death of romantic comedy

There are few movies I go to see in the theater. It's just so pricey, and on top of that, it needs to be one the husband and I agree is worth the money. I can't remember the last romantic comedy I saw in the theater...I'm guessing it was something I saw with roommates in college. The point is, I am dreadfully behind on the genre. If I don't see it in the theater, I have to remember it exists to add to my Netflix list a few months later when it's on DVD. And there are so many to remember. Thanks to friends who remember to rent the movies, or even make it to the theater to see them, and who proceed to blog about them, I have sort of caught up on what's been out recently. I've decided to just pull out the ones I already own and watch them next time I'm tempted to see a new one. Maybe I've lost a bit of my romantic side. Maybe I've become more prudish. Maybe I am just an old fuddy duddy. But last week I watched 3 different romantic comedies, and they just didn't do it for me.

The first one I watched was "P.S., I Love You." If I'd been thinking, I probably would have saved this one for last. It has the most attractive men, and compared to the others, it was very cute and, if a bit sappy, kind of touching, too. To sum up, a woman loses her husband to a brain tumor (the popular way for someone to go in movies these days, apparently), and he has left her a bunch of letters that are delivered to her by different people using different methods. It was more just romance than romantic comedy, come to think of it. I can't think of much that was funny. I think Lisa Kudrow was supposed to be the comic relief, but I was too busy blowing my nose from crying the whole time to find anything she did all that funny. Just thinking about this movie kind of makes me want to watch it again to remind myself what my complaint was (besides that Hilary Swank looks like a drag queen to me, albeit in cute dresses in this movie). I'm guessing I just got tired of crying by the end of the movie. I cried a lot when I saw "Return to Me" as well, but I also laughed quite a bit, because the comic relief was actually there and a relief. Okay, this one may be worth seeing, if you're in the mood for something sentimental and somewhat romantically satisfying.

Then I saw "Definitely, Maybe." Boo. Boo! I found nothing redeeming about it. Nothing. Not even that cute little girl from "Little Miss Sunshine" (Abygail Whatshername). It started with divorce, followed by sexual dialogue, followed by more sexual dialogue said by an 8-year-old (!!!) and a long, boring story about how the little girl's dad met her mom. The girl is trying to guess between three women with whom he had relationships. So this little girl is sitting there, listening to her dad's sexual exploits with three women, trying to figure out which one is the mom that's divorcing her dad. What a heartwarming story. There was nothing remotely funny about it, nothing romantic about it, and, although they were trying to make it mean something, it was completely shallow and lame. Blech.

The next one in line was "Catch and Release," which looked kind of cute to me when I saw the previews. Once again, I was disappointed. Of course, after "Definitely, Maybe" my expectations weren't all that high, to be honest. This one is about a girl whose fiancee dies on a fishing trip (yes, more death, but this time it wasn't by brain tumor). Inappropriate sexual "humor" at the funeral, blah blah, she starts hanging out with his old roommates and they are supposed to be funny. It feels like you're being set up for her to fall for his one decent friend--the one that puts fresh flowers by her bed when she's sad, who treats her decently, respects her time of mourning, etc. But no, she falls for the slimeball that was involved in that "humor" at the funeral and who keeps her dead fiancee's secret girlfriend in L.A. a secret until she shows up to ask for more child support. So basically, this movie is about how the good guy doesn't get the girl, the slimeball gets the girl, and it's okay to rebound a few weeks after your cheating, lying fiancee dies, because he was a liar. Because the slimeball is cute and reminds you of your dead fiancee. Ick. So unsatisfying, so meaningless, and so trying to be deep without even slightly succeeding.

The conclusion I've come to is that romantic comedy is DEAD. I think writers need to watch a few good oldies and remind themselves what makes a good romantic comedy. Like, romance instead of straight sex, and stuff that's funny and not just crass and vulgar. Here are some recommendations, for any screenwriters out there: "While You Were Sleeping"--what I consider the perfect combination of witty dialogue, tender moments, and family humor with a satisfying romantic conclusion. "Return to Me"--this is for those people who feel like death must be included in the script. I bawled my eyes out for the first 20 minutes and last 20 minutes of this movie, but was delighted for the rest of it. That's called balance. The characters are likeable, there are cute old people that are hilarious, there's nothing that would make you uncomfortable on a date (hello--requirement!), and the clothes Minnie Driver wears are adorable, partly because they almost match, but not quite. And if you're going for straight sappiness, "A Walk to Remember"--so, so, so sappy, but I love the message. How about a movie about a teenage girl that stays true to her values, even when the popular guy starts to notice her, and kids tease her about her wholesomeness. How about if, instead of the guy inspiring her to change into a slutty dress and a new haircut, he changes himself into someone who cares and respects her faith and buys her another cardigan? I know makeovers are fun, and there's always a montage in teeny bopper romances that involves trying on lots of cute clothes and getting haircuts, but it is nice to see a movie that says it's okay to stay true to yourself, and that change from the inside out is better than just a makeover. And guess what? All three of those movies involve kissing but no sex! What? Is that even possible? YES!!! So, maybe one of my writer friends could write the next great romantic comedy (Rachel K? Please?). I'm done with them for now. Off I go to watch North and South again. (More of a romantic tragedy than comedy, but if you haven't seen it, DO! The British one, not the one about the Civil War.)