Stuff by Steve

This review contains comments that may spoil the film if you haven’t seen it; in this case, refrain from reading the italicised text (but it shouldn’t matter anyway).

In concept, this movie held a lot of promise (how many times have I said that?). Imagine your favourite childhood fairy tales told as if drawn from the real-life experiences of their creators. Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, the famous storytellers of such classics as “Red Riding Hood,” “Rapunzel,” and “Cinderella,” were portrayed here as swindlers who sought out small town legends, exacerbated them with a few carefully-crafted theatrics, and then exploited the local villagers by “ridding” them of the source of their “Rumpelstiltskin” for a hefty fee. One day they found themselves called upon to investigate the disappearance of some children, only to discover that the children were the victims of an actual enchanted forest. Adventure and intrigue were then supposed to ensue. Instead, what we got was an illogical, confusing, and just-plain-un-enjoyable mess. You know how fairy tales are completely fantastic in nature (since enchanted forests don’t actually exist), yet easy to understand and ultimately very relevant? For example, wolves cannot actually talk and entice little girls in red riding caps into swallowing distance. Instead, it is assumed that the wolf represents the evil that may befall a child listening to the story if he or she were to disobey a parent’s instructions. With this movie, the wolf was actually a man who took lupine form and was the father of the damsel-in-distress while entranced by the evil witch of the woods who used her talking mirror to ensnare further victims. I can’t forget the magic spiders that were fed to a horse to turn it into a child-snatching accomplice, the gingerbread man who evolved from mud to do the same, and the fact that there were actually a dozen damsels in distress. You know, on the plus side, the visuals were spot on, with a style that perfectly suited the land of “Sleeping Beauty” and amazing special effects. But, creepy moving trees do not a good movie make. This one was crap.

“A Lot Like Love” was a little bit like a modern “Romeo and Juliet” without the Shakespearean tragic ending (I won’t say exactly how it ended, but nobody lost their life - sorry if that upsets anyone). Here we experienced the agony of two people who were perfect for each other but were kept apart by some questionable but mostly just differing life decisions. After a chance meeting, the two main characters were thrust together periodically, usually by their own will, as they moved through their lives in search of what lay immediately before them. Ultimately a sweet, romantic, feel-good movie about finding the love of your life, I found it just a tad too far on the side of ordinary. It was apparent that the guy and the girl had a certain chemistry, and they definitely made a cute couple (although, it was mildly annoying that they had to exhibit it by making out in a way that reminded me of rabbits). The movie itself started out slow, but picked up about halfway through, and a few scenes stood out as pleasantly memorable. Still, there was just something missing that was needed to push this one into the “Good” category. I was reminded of “You’ve Got Mail,” where the main characters were in and of themselves quite endearing, and I got pleasure just watching them be around each other - they were just so charming that it would be a crime for them not to end up together in the end. With this movie, that pull wasn’t there - I just didn’t really care the way I thought I should. Danielle liked the movie a lot, but my chick flick standards are higher than hers, plus I’ve decided that I’ve seen too much of Ashton Kutcher. For me this one wasn’t too bad, but still something I wouldn’t watch over again.