Love Actually is one of my favorite movies. I love the web of separate yet interlaced stories of people on Christmas, sharing joys, heartache and laughs with them. I still love that movie and watch it every holiday season.

But it’s not Christmas, it’s Valentine’s Day, and the movie with the same title is tempting me to be my Love Actually post-Christmas season movie so I sucked it up and went to see it (along with every other couple in Chicago) and here’s my review.

Movie: Valentine’s Day

Rating: PG-13

Release date: February 12, 2010

Everyday Adventures’ grade: B+

Summary: It’s Valentine’s Day in Los Angeles and we’re following around a group of separate yet intertwined people celebrating the day of candy, depression and flowers. I won’t even bother naming the cast because pretty much everyone famous is in it. Seriously, throw a name out and I’m sure he/she is in it. Try me.

My thoughts: I didn’t love it as much as Love Actually, but this wasn’t awful. The stories are funny and run the gamete of people “happily” in love, people getting engaged, people tested by long-term love and people just entering into a relationship and wondering how to celebrate Valentine’s Day when they aren’t even sure if they’re in a relationship. I loved Topher Grace in “That 70s Show” and it was great seeing him in a non-Stephen Soderbergh or Oceans movie, but he continues to play the same neurotic, jabbery guy he has in just about every movie or show I’ve seen him in.

Even Ashton Kutcher, who I find interesting yet annoying, wasn’t awful. Sure, he grates on you after awhile and the hammiest lines appear in his scenes, but he was fun to watch. I actually like all of the characters in the movie, with minor exception to Taylor Swift (don’t quit your day job), Queen Latifah (wasn’t on screen enough for me to connect with her) and Eric Dane (hot but again, not a necessary character). I will say, there were a few big twists in the movie that surprised me, but I’m glad they were there because it kept the movie from being 100 percent predictable.

And there was a great scene with Taylor Swift that wistfully reminded me of young love and that silly, giggly, OMG-I-love-him emotion.

My only other complaint, Taylor Lautner was almost fully shirtless that entire movie. And he didn’t take his shirt off when asked to do so. WTF? I’m paying $11 to see this movie. TAKE THAT SHIRT OFF!

Did you go see Valentine’s Day this weekend? Did you like it or are you a Love Actually loyalist?

I love movies. So much so that lately I’ve been able to pick (just by a trailer) if a movie will make me actually laugh, cry or roll my eyes. Most of the time, I can even tell you how the movie will end. And I am rarely wrong.

Sometimes, it’s good to know how you’ll react to a movie because then you’re prepared. Unlike I was for Up, where even with warning, I sobbed like a baby. Seriously, that movie broke me.

Anyhow, TC and I hit the movies again and this time it was my pick :) Let’s get to the review.

Movie: Dear John

Rating: PG-13

Release date: February 5, 2010

Everyday Adventures’ grade: B+

Summary: Nicholas Sparks is tries again to make you cry until you can’t breathe or your tear ducts beg for mercy. But this time, instead of “The Notebook,” it’s “Dear John,” a love story about John (Channing Tatum) and Savannah (Amanda Seyfried). John and Savannah meet and fall in love one summer, only to be torn apart by John’s Army deployment. To stay connected, they write letters to each other and over the years find that things don’t always stay the same.

My thoughts: I’ll just say it, yes, you will cry. And yes, there are several scenes of Channing Tatum shirtless and they are G-L-O-R-I-O-U-S. It’s the only time I’ve been in a movie where people are choking back tears and fawning over a bare chest at the same time.

In comparison to “The Notebook,” I liked “Dear John” a lot more. The timeliness of the story, a couple torn apart by one being in the military, really connects and the frustration and devotion between John and Savannah is very realistic. Sure, there are some hammy lines and lingering moments with unfinished sentences (like a bad Party of Five rerun) but the emotion in the letters between the main characters really makes you yearn for that connection we often lose by email.

Channing Tatum and Amanda Seyfried are great and the chemistry between them feels very real. And of course, he is VERY NICE to look at. Richard Jenkins (The Visitor/Stepbrothers) is also really effective as John’s dad. He is a great actor and the father/son dynamic made me cry at parts (even more than the main story) because it was so real. Even little Elliott from E.T. (Henry Thomas) has a small role and provides a rather surprising plot twist. There is a subplot about autism that never fully plays out and throws you off but it’s not a big distraction from the main story.

Here’s what I liked about the movie: the way it shows love growing and changing as time passes but distance remains. The ending was not what I expected but yet, it after some thought, I felt okay about it. It tackles the idea that a true love and connection never dies even as lives and relationships evolve, but doesn’t wrap everything up in a bow like, “oh my gosh we went through so much and still are the same people we were before.” That’s not real.

I wasn’t a huge fan of 500 Days of Summer’s realistic view on love but this is a good balance of reality and idealism and that I can live with.

On a tissue scale, this was a 2-3 tissue movie.

Did anyone else go see it this weekend? Or do you plan to see it?

I’ve had this review in my arsenal for a while but was tardy in posting. But now that the movie received a Best Picture nomination and Carey Mulligan received one for Best Actress, I thought it was time to post it.

YAY it’s almost Oscar time!

Movie: An Education

Rating: PG-13

Release date: October 8, 2009 (On DVD March 2010)

Everyday Adventures’ grade: A-

Summary: Jenny (Carey Milligen) is a London teen living a school-focused live in the 60s. She’s bored with her life and longs of a bohemian life in France, but her strict parents (Alfred Molina and Cara Seymour) keep her focused on school alone with the dream of attending Oxford. Then comes David (Peter Sarsgaard), a twice-her-age knight with good looks, charm and money. David gives Jenny an escape from her current life and  taste of a different one, with consequences.

My thoughts: Carey Milligen has been getting major buzz about her role as Jenny and I can see why. She’s cute, innocent and has an “aw shucks” persona. She is perfect for this role. And watching her with David, it made me remember being a teen in love for the first time. The shoulder shrugging, giggling and general “oh-my-god-this-guy-actually-likes-me” look was like looking at myself at 18, before I realized most guys I was dating were d*cks. And some still are.

Peter Sarsgaard needs to work on his British accent more (it was fading in and out) but he was definitely charming and I found myself being a little seduced by him. Rawr. And he would make an awesome sugar daddy, for real. Alfred Molina (aka Doc Ock) was annoying as the penny pinching, crazy enforcer dad but while he was driving me to drink, I did think he was really effective.

And because it’s the 60s, there’s lots of hand mixers, gorgeous dresses and smoking. That two of which I wanted to do when we left.

Go see it!

Fact: I’m not a huge fan of mysteries. Fact #2: I have never read one of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s books.

But, I do like Jude Law, sh*t being blown up and men shirtless, so Sherlock Holmes is a pretty good fit for me.

And after seeing Robert Downey Jr. win a Golden Globe for his role, the curiosity got to be too much for me.

So away we go!

Movie: Sherlock Holmes

Rating: PG-13

Release date: December 25, 2009

Everyday Adventures’ grade: A-

Summary: The classic Sir Arthur Conan Doyle characters are reinvented by director Guy Ritchie. Set in 19th Century London, Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and Watson (Jude Law) are on a case involving the evil Lord Blackwood, which requires the help of Holmes’ love interest/enemy Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams).

My thoughts: The main reason I don’t like mysteries is because I never fully understand the plot until the end when everything falls into place. Of course, I love that reveal but it’s the waiting and trying to piece it together myself that can be frustrating. Fortunately, you are let in on the bigger mystery in pieces throughout the movie, which keeps me engaged and curious to learn what else I’m missing.

Ritchie’s directing style with a mix of frantic and slow motion camera movements is present throughout and rather than making you feel sick, it breaks up the long periods of dialogue and Robert Downey Jr. staring at the camera. His setting of 19th Century London looks a little Gangs Of New York-like, gritty, gray and unpleasant, but it’s effective with the overall tone of the movie.

Downey is intriguing as Holmes, dialing his Tony Stark impression down about four notches to still be entertaining but a little more damaged. Jude Law is a great Watson, trying to keep Holmes on the straight-and-narrow and withholding his desire for adventure. Rachel McAdams is good but not great. After meeting her character, she isn’t who I would have cast, but she’s effective.

And there is genuine suspense in the movie too. A few times I was grabbing my handrest and hiding behind my hands. I was also a little surprised this is rated PG-13 because a few scenes are a bit graphic and violent, but hey, what do I know?

I recommend this movie. I liked it much more than I thought I would but I don’t think Robert Downey Jr. should get used to winning awards for his role. He was good, but not “blow me away amazing.”

Did you see Sherlock Holmes? If so, what did you think?

Just to start off, I’ve never read the book that the movie is based on. I tried, twice, and couldn’t get past the first two chapters. If you’ve read the book you likely know why. There were some heavy, upsetting things that happened and although those actions set up the entire book, I just could not bring myself to keep reading.

So that’s my disclaimer to the below review :)

Movie: The Lovely Bones

Rating: PG-13

Release date: December 11, 2009

Everyday Adventures’ grade: B-/C+

Summary: Based on the Alice Sebold book, The Lovely Bones is set in the early 70s, where Susie (Saoirse Ronan) is murdered by her brutal, deceptive neighbor (Stanley Tucci) and her family (Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz) deals with her terrible loss and tries to solve her murder.

My thoughts: Yeah, this movie is kind of a downer. I wouldn’t go see this if you’re looking for something light and fluffy but if you read the book ahead of time, you probably already knew that :)

For not reading the book and judging this solely on the movie. It was…okay. Visually, it was amazing. After LOTR, everyone knows Peter Jackson has a great eye for CGI and creating alternate worlds, and he does that here, weaving between real life and this “inbetween” world. What I found to be a little lacking was the story, which I had a hard time following in parts.

The most poignant scenes were the ones Susie narrates about her close relationship with her dad. Their close relationship and how lost he feels after she’s gone and her death being unresolved was very difficult to watch without crying. TC and I were both reaching for the tissues. But I had a hard time following how she communicates with her family, what this “inbetween” world is, how all of it fits together, especially at the end. To me, it felt very…unresolved or unsatisfying in how it ended.

The best part of this movie is Stanley Tucci, who is great in every movie he’s in, especially The Devil Wears Prada and Julie & Juila. He’s great but in this is he TRULY scary and chilling from his clothing to his mannerisms to the cold look in his eye. He is absolutely mesmerizing in this and creates a level of terror and fear that truly makes you fear and wonder what he’ll do next. He’s nominated for a Golden Globe tonight (as of publish time his category was unannounced) and he definitely is a strong contender. It’s just too bad that he gets lost in a story that jumps around and then ultimately ends without feeling like you went full circle. If nothing else, his performance in this movie is enough to see it.

Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz are good as his parents, I honestly can’t imagine Ryan Gosling playing the dad, but again, I think story makes it difficult to really develop their characters. Although I didn’t read the book, I know a key part in how Susie dies is missing due to the graphic and unsettling subject matter, and I don’t know if that would have really brought the story to another level on film, but I think for how great of a director Peter Jackson is, he needs to tighten up the script a bit more next time to really make it a complete picture.

Oh and be sure to watch for Peter Jackson’s cameo.

What did you think of the movie? If you read the book, did you feel the movie was pretty accurate?