Magic Mike XXL and my Mother of the Year Award

I recently went with a girlfriend to see the movie Magic Mike XXL, as we had seen the last one together. Don't judge me, btw, because you know you saw it too and if you didn't? I don't even have time to get into all that. I haven't been to a movie in a movie theater in almost a year either, so it was about time. Plus it was girls night! So naked dude movies and burgers.
Anyway, my almost-5-year-old daughter caught me looking at my phone and laughing at lunchtime today and asked me why I was "staring at my phone and giggling." My girlfriend who had gone with me to see the movie had sent me a YouTube clip of a scene in which one of the "male entertainers" was trying to make a convenience store checkout girl smile while dancing around to "I Want It That Way" by the Backstreet Boys. If you saw the movie, you'd know that this particular scene was far more hilarious and cute than racy, and there was pretty much nothing suggestive and no nudity besides some male toplessness, which kind of doesn't even count.
So my daughter sneaks up behind me and asks, why is that naked man dancing in the store?
I'm all, he's only shirtless, not naked. Let's be real. You see that that man has pants on, right? Right?
And she's like, mom, that's still not allowed. He should know better. And she shakes her head and walks away.
So I put down my phone, stuffed some mac and cheese in my face, and gave myself the Mom of the Year award for accidentally letting my kid sneak-watch scenes from Magic Mike.
Also, if you want my actual review of the movie? Hilarious and heartwarming. Everybody gets what they want in the end, but after a lot of stripping at a stripper convention (which really exist maybe? I have no clue). It was way funnier than the first one. Lots of partial nudity and adult situations though, so if you don't like that? Probably don't go then, I'm guessing. But if you're ok with that? Then you've probably already seen it, because I'm a little late on this one. I'm kind of lucky it was still playing, since the latest showing was at 4:50. But in real life that means I can still eat dinner by 6:30 and be in bed by 9. A+ mom time all around.

If you go in expecting a summer blockbuster...

you won't be disappointed. If instead you expect anything even remotely like the book, prepare for some serious frustration. This, in a nutshell, is my review of World War Z. Brace yourself for a few spoilers.
The movie is a quick-moving, action packed thriller. Most of the people you meet only stick around for like, a minute (they're zombie chow the next). The infectious virus doctor who is kind of funny and supposed to be the reason for the international mission? Yeah, he makes it to the first stop, just barely, and then? Yeah. You know the rest. So it goes with everyone Brad Pitt encounters for pretty much the entire film.
Let me give you the similarities between the book and the movie...don't worry, it's a pretty short list: there is someone with dubious connects to the UN (in the book it's a "postwar council" to record things, and in the movie it's just a guy who used to work there and is apparently good enough at life in general for them to send out a helicopter for him and his entire family to Newark, where no one ever wants to go, especially if it's filled with zombies), they go to a few different countries to show some differences in how the situation is handled (though North Korea is dealt with TOTALLY differently in both), and oh yeah, there are zombies. If you have read the book, you should know not to to expect much more than that. The cool bits about the ineptitude of the government, the rabies vaccine, establishing safe zones, what happens to the rest of the world, and how they started rebuilding? Well, they're just not entertaining enough to share screen time with Brad Pitt (apparently neither was his co-star, Mirielle Enos, who doesn't have enough time here to be as wonderful as she is in TV's The Killing). I also expected something to be mentioned about how the boats in the book were not safe at all, since in the movie they spent some time on a boat, but that was also ignored, sadly (would have made for a minute or two of interesting viewing).
All in all though, I enjoyed the movie. The "zombies" here are of the 28 Days Later virus-made super fast and strong variety, not The Night of the Living Dead slow and dumb variety. That kind of makes for better viewing, though it may not be totally accurate (but who am I to say?). It's a fun bit of zombie fare, if you're into that sort of thing, and Lord knows I am. But it's also a little trite. You know when you're supposed to remember something, and it's obvious if something will be important later. It also wraps up a little to cleanly at the end for my tastes, but that's just me.
If I were giving it stars, let's say 3 1/2 out of 5? Not the best movie, but I was entertained for about 2 hours, and it made for a good drive-in date night movie with the hubs. But don't bring the kids, unless they're not easily scared and also love zombies.

Reviews of scary things for which I was very excited but just left me disappointed in the end.

If you're not a fan of scary things and/or major spoilers, do yourself a favor and skip this post. 

Original 1981 Poster. Pretty accurate visual summation of the film.

2013 Poster. Not much to look at, and full of lies.

First of all, I'd like to say that the new Evil Dead movie was something that I was looking forward to since I first heard that it would be remade. The first movie (heck, the first series of movies really) was a classic, and since there were a lot of the same people on board, I had high hopes. But let me just say, it certainly does not live up to the claims made on the poster. Def not the most terrifying film I've ever experienced. Let me start off with the main good points: decent acting, spooky location, effective use of some of the camera tricks from the original,  re-creation of some of the more important/memorable events and story elements from the first film, and even a more reasonable of a backstory than the 1981 classic (in the 2013 version, a detoxing drug addict with a history of relapse is the reason they don't want to leave the cabin). Even the effects were a little cheesy, but not CGI'd, which is a definite plus for me. But on the flip side, I did not end up caring about or rooting for any single one of the characters in this movie (with the exception of the dog, but you can guess what happens there). Also, the ridiculous black humor that made me love the first series of film so much was sadly absent. The buckets of blood and geysers of gore were there, so that was mercifully similar. There were also odd story elements that got no explanation and seemed completely unnecessary (like the cats? who thought that up? and the odd kissing thing?) But I suppose that no Ashe was the real deal-breaker for me.
I read a few reviews that called the film really misogynist. I don't think that was the case. I just feel like the female characters were really disposable and poorly written (and probably not on purpose). The poor blonde girl? You know she's not going to make it to the credits the moment you see her. She just doesn't seem important. The nurse? Well once everyone realizes that they're dealing with demons and not a medical condition, there's really no reason for her to stick around, is there? But like I said before, I didn't particularly care about any one character very much anyway, so it wasn't much of a loss. It's almost as if they were written to care about the other female characters, and so they obviously had to come into contact with the demon first, and then we all know where it goes from there.
All in all, I'm glad I went to see it. It was a nice drive-in date with my husband. But did it retain the cheesy, funny, blood-and-guts scholckiness of the original? Sadly, no. Should you go see it? Meh. If you're a big fan of the original, go for it. But if not, do yourself a favor and see the 1981 classic, and then the two sequels.

And then, although I missed the boat on getting this review to you in a timely fashion, let's talk about the season finale of The Walking Dead. Did you want to scream when the credits rolled (because I totally screamed, and it was both mature and attractive)? I know that we've dealt with the Woodbury storyline for a whole season or so, but now that the Governor has shown his true colors and has killed off most of the healthy adults and all of the feeble, the elderly, and the kiddies are "safe" at the prison, where do we go from here? We know that the Governor, sneaky snake that he is, is out there somewhere plotting his revenge. Will the two nutso cronies he has left be obedient little lapdogs and continue to do his bidding, or will they turn on him like they should have done in the last two minutes of the season to save us all of this agony? And now that the prison is full of people who need a lot of protection, how will that be accomplished? But I'm glad they brought Tyrese back into the prison fold, and I'm hoping that the group can enjoy at least a brief happiness there, since the location is being dragged into next season. 
And now let's talk Andrea, shall we? As a reader of the comic book, I feel like they kill off the very characters who would otherwise move the story forward in interesting ways. When Dale died at the farm, I my first response was at least they still have Andrea. Now? I just don't know where they're going with this. And unfortunately, she really didn't accomplish much of anything. She tried to do a lot of things, but she really failed miserably at all of them. Maybe that's why she got a bite from the world's meekest walker and had to opt out in the end. Seems a pretty serious punishment for just not being able to get herself on lockdown.
Carl and his little trigger-happy episode has shown the audience that about as much of Shane's influence on him stuck as his father's, and that might not be a bad thing. He does seem to think clearly when no one else does (like earlier this season when he found all of the medical supplies on his own instead of hanging out with the women and the infirm), and understands that there are dangers that can't be measured or reasoned with. I like this new Carl, because he seems to know what needs to be done in the new world but you can tell he still has to think about what he'll do because he's got a conscience.
All this to say that I was taking bets on who from the prison would die (I figured Beth, Hershel, and the baby, and maybe Carol), and when no one did? Well I wasn't that disappointed about that, especially since every episode will be fraught with danger, and I'm sure they'll bite it eventually. But when there was no resolution at all? AMC, if you didn't make the best shows on TV, you and I would have words. And those words would be, I'm never watching you again and you make me want to play in traffic.   

The movie review I almost didn't write...

SPOILER ALERT. FOR REALS. 

Have you seen Django Unchained? I have been waiting for quite some time for Quentin Tarantino to make a western, and so I wanted to see it almost as soon as I heard it was coming out. I went to see it this weekend, and I hesitated to write this review because I've seen the virulent opposition to this film by a number of writers and reviewers. If you know nothing else about it, let me just say that it's about a former slave who, with the help of a German bounty hunter, becomes a bounty hunter himself and loves it, but also resolves to find and free his wife. Additionally, Leonardo DiCaprio is getting pretty good at being a bad guy in his old age, and in this film he is a very bad guy with very bad teeth and a possible incestuous relationship with his sister. The movie was good. It was really good. But that being said, let me throw a few caveats up in there.

It was violent. 

So violent. As in, violent and bloody even by Quentin Tarantino standards. Far beyond like that scene in Kill Bill with the Crazy 88, which was bloody to the extreme but almost silly. I have a high tolerance for that sort of thing, but I still had to look away from the screen so many times I lost count (not only to people die, animals die too. But if you stay for the credits, it does say that no horses were harmed, which settled my stomach a little). Some scenes were particularly hard to watch because, unlike some bloody movies, this one had an emotional component.

It was long. 

Hubs and I thought we would be ok without snacks or popcorn, even though we went to an 11:40 am showing. By the time I got out of the theater (at almost 3) I was starving. I was clearly not adequately prepared.

It might have been racist. I'm not sure. 

As a standard, nondescript white person, I don't know what makes African American moviegoers particularly uncomfortable, but I can guess super-violent movies about cruel slave owners might be something that tends toward that end of the spectrum. Some things, such as rap music playing during a shootout, struck me as a little too racist, but then again, I'm not 100% sure. I know that some of it was probably intentional on Taratino's part as a filmmaker, to make the viewer uncomfortable as an effect of the movie-going experience. 

It was unrealistic. 

The first question I had, not 10 minutes into the movie, was whether or not the filmmakers consulted ballistics experts to ascertain what would have been the explosions, splatter patterns, noise levels, etc. caused by pre-Civil War-era guns and ammo. I doubt that they did, and I suppose shooting someone and having the person go flying 10 feet backwards through a doorway was just for dramatic effect. Also, I have a feeling that in the lawless southern areas of the country (which by my accounts are pretty similar today), the good doctor and the freed slave would not have been met with the "kind" reception that they received. There were a ton of things I wanted to research for accuracy as soon as I left the theater, but as my sister always tells me, it's just a movie. So it doesn't have to be realistic. 

All that being said, it was funny too. I laughed a lot, but sometimes I felt almost guilty laughing (the scene with the hoods that no one could see through? Kind of funny, if you forget what they're for). And I mean really, if the body count isn't taken into consideration, it ends on such a happy note, and the two lovebirds are reunited in the end. I liked it because it is a western, and I especially like the new westerns especially when they feel like the old, late 60's early 70's Sergio Leone westerns, which this does at times. Also, this was the only Quentin Tarantino movie that I've ever left the theater and thought, well I enjoyed that movie. Usually I hate them the first time I see them and I have to watch a few more times before they grow on me (which they always do). But while this one was very good initially, I don't know that I'd like to sit through it again. Some scenes were just too much, like the one in which a man is eaten alive by dogs. That's almost enough to haunt a person. 

I've read a few reviews from people who say things like "I don't think that this movie should have ever been made" and the like, because of the violent, almost callous way it deals with the subject of slavery. By that token, I'm sure that there are a ton of movies that should never have been made. But they were. It's art, but it's also entertainment. If we are to exist in a supposedly post-racial society, these things all need to be put on the table. If racial tension or violence (both of which are par for the course in Quentin Tarantino films) make you uncomfortable in the first place, this is clearly not a movie for you, and you aren't going to get anything out of it anyway. Additionally, this is clearly not a documentary. It didn't all happen this way. But you have to expect the cruelty. It's not like they glossed over the "slaveholders were bad" part of history class...maybe they did, I don't know where you went to school, but you know that they aren't going to be holding hands and skipping stones with slaves. I think that most of the opposition to this film comes from people who just don't want to think that things were ever that bad. But they were. Also, while slavery is a huge part of the film and definitely an underlying layer, it's not the whole film. It's kind of a love story in a way. It's also somewhat a story of redemption. But in most of the reviews I read, I think people are focusing too much on the wrong sort of things.

At any rate, I liked the movie. But I wouldn't bring kids, or my mom. And I don't think I'll be seeing it again any time soon.