jeannel2003-618-511281

I enjoyed the first Aurora Teagarden (and I love her name!) Hallmark movie and looked forward to this one. The staple characters are likable and Candace Cameron Bure's "Roe" is delightful (I never saw the TV series that made her famous, "Full House," or anything else in which she has appeared). This movie concentrates on the Real Murders Club of which she, her best friend, Sally (a newspaper reporter), and her mother's romantic interest, John, are all members. It appears that a serial killer is loose in Aurora's charming town, mimicking real-life infamous murders that the Club has discussed. As clues began to surface it becomes clearer that the murderer could be one of the Club members. This really is too close to home for Aurora, who first suspects then allies herself with a best-selling (and good looking) author of mystery novels to solve the mystery and reveal who the murderer is.

I enjoy a few of the series on the Hallmark Movies and Mysteries channel, but this is my favorite because it is closer to a true "cozy" environment and presents some interesting puzzles and mostly charming and likable characters. For the most part, the main characters are well cast; it's a treat to see Marilu Henner again, for example. However, not having read the books I cannot comment on how close the movies or actors reflect the plots and characters in the books, and perhaps that's just as well.

Although the denouement was a bit far-fetched, it lends itself to the wackiness that can make a cozy truly endearing.

I am a mystery buff (favorite authors include Sue Grafton, Paretsky, Kellerman (Faye), Braun, Evanovich, Cannell, Christie, George and Hammett) who enjoys a wide range of genres. I appreciate cozies because they offer relief from blood, gore and rough language and usually are very witty. Thus, I enjoy the Hallmark Movies and Mysteries offering of the Aurora Teagarden installments. I have not read these books, but the movies are fun and uplifting. I also love romance and there's some of that in these movies as well.

The series launches with "A Bone to Pick," which focuses on a mysterious inheritance for our heroine, consisting of a house, a human skull and murder mystery to solve. While Aurora ("Roe" to her friends) is a librarian she is also a passionate member of the Real Murders Club, so she is a dedicated amateur sleuth who is not above circumventing the law on occasion to solve a murder mystery. This, of course upsets her proper and professional mother who is a well-known real estate broker with her own successful agency and hates the Real Murders Club; her best friend, who is a newspaper reporter; her former boyfriend who is a detective along with his very pregnant detective wife who is no fan of Roe's; and the police captain who is even less a fan. However, Roe has an ally, another who is also a member of the Real Murders Club and who is in love with Roe's mother, who hates the Club. Roe's mother also is interested in helping her daughter to find "Mr. Right," and settle down. So we have a fun and feisty collection of characters against which background Roe sets out to solve the murder mystery she inherited.

As someone who has loved the Harry Potter books and movies, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, which is visually stunning and delightfully continues the Potterverse. However, viewers who have not read the books -- seeing the HP movies is not enough -- might find themselves a bit lost. Beyond that slight obstacle, I would have liked to have seen the Second Salemers drawn more sharply and sinister from the start, Eddie Redmayne (who I love and was perfectly cast as Newt Scamander) not swallow his dialogue, Graves/Grindelwald and Picquery recast with more energetic and dynamic actors and at the end Picquery, to show her gratitude to Newt and just a glimmer that she "gets it" to have made some gesture to somehow assist in Frank's safe journey to Arizona alone (I don't believe Frank can make himself invisible but if he can that was not made clear). The way things ended between the MACUSA President and Newt fell a bit flat. I think these changes would have made FB even more enjoyable.

Claire Danes, whose work to date I admire, acts like a ditz who has had too much caffeine and is not convincing as a high-level CIA operative. Her over-acting is painful to watch. Had she actually behaved like this while on duty in Iraq she probably would not have lived to tell about it.

The returning POW (I am not familiar with this actor's work but in this role he does little more for me than an oil painting would) descends on his family unceremoniously, expecting to pick up where he left off eight years ago. There are no scenes that show family counseling sessions, as one would expect after an eight-year separation under such trying circumstances. There is no poignant scene between the POW and his wife, in which he asks how she managed all those years, did she become involved with someone else (I thought after seven years of going missing a person could be declared dead), what she has she told the children and what she can tell him about them. Nope. None of that; just jumped on her and relieves himself with no passion, compassion, concern or awareness of his wife's feelings. She was obviously underwhelmed with his performance, as I was with the entire pilot. How did she marry such a dolt in the first place? In any case, why didn't she initiate a heart-to-heart at this point? I understand her concern for his emotional state and her loyalty to her husband and country, but where is her self-respect and her character in being honest with her husband. His wellbeing is not the only issue here; her children's wellbeing trumps all, and she's not doing them any good by perpetuating a sham. Of course, the man with whom she's involved is a complete dolt, as well.

Not one character, including Carrie, is likable, convincing or sympathetic. And, as I am a stickler for details (as the director obviously was not) I was offended when Carrie's superior (or "babysitter," as he is called) put down his coffee cup on his wood table without a coaster, or at least on the table runner. In doing so he conveyed that the table was not his and he wasn't in his home (as he was portrayed to be)or else he would never have treated his furniture in that regard. The fact that he apparently lives in a house probably means he is married, and even if he doesn't care if he makes a mark on the table with a hot coffee cup, his wife would clean his clock for doing so.

I have to confess that I finally tuned out at the scene where Carrie is picking up a guy at a bar and she says something to the effect, does he want to hear how she sold out her best friend, or some such thing. That clinched it for me. Danes's character is a mess and provides no reason for me to stick with her. Nor does this pilot provide any reasons to entice me to follow this series.

If you loved "Annie Hall," you will enjoy this film that reunites Woody Allen and Diane Keaton in an Alfred Hitchcock Meets Mr. & Mrs. North murder mystery romp. Set against the backdrop of the New York urban sophisticated married couple with their apartment-living and hip friends, Allen and Keaton reprise the "Annie Hall" warmth and nuttiness as the darling duo become involved in a murder mystery.

The production is not perfect, and it's not for everyone; but it doesn't matter. Mr. Allen's and Ms. Keaton's fans will love it, as their characters' witty banter, attractiveness and goofiness carry the movie. The ensemble cast is pure Woody Allen and is, as usual, terrific.

Routine, comfortable moments are mixed with suspense and comedy. Get out the popcorn, put up your feet and enjoy!

I didn't read Elizabeth Gilbert's autobiographical book on which this movie is based (and I'm not sure I want to after viewing this movie, although I'm sure the book is wittier and more inspiring), but even reading the New York Times book review I can see that the movie missed the boat. As such, Julia Roberts plays a character who takes the prize for being a world class narcissist. A more self-centered heroine would be hard to find. After asking her heartbroken husband, played by Billy Crudup, for a divorce because she is not happy and needs to find herself, she jumps into an affair a struggling actor, whom she leaves as soon as her divorce becomes final and she is free to travel to Italy, India and Bali, to spend a year trying to sort out her id. I do not recall the movie making clear how she can financially afford to do so (she forfeits everything to her husband in exchange for the divorce), but elsewhere I read that Ms. Gilbert obtained an advance from her publisher to write a book based on her experiences eating, praying and loving for the year.

In the movie, Liz eats her way through Italy, struggles with meditation in India -- where she meets the most obnoxious, arrogant fellow traveler, played by Richard Jenkins, who browbeats her until she learns to cherish him as a friend -- then moves on to Bali where she falls in love and literally sails off into the sunset with him.

Throughout this tedious film, Liz's actions seem to reflect the influence of the person or persons with whom she has been with most recently; she doesn't seem to have a mind of her own, or heart, for that matter. The only spark of humanity that we see in Liz is when she emails her friends asking them to pass on getting her a birthday present and instead send month to help a divorced woman in Bali to afford a house for her and her young daughter; apparently divorced women in Bali have a rank slightly higher than dogs (nice place).

I've experienced the charms of Italy--its wonderful scenery and food, and somewhat insane men--and don't need this movie to entice me; however, I might be put off India and Bali as a result of seeing this movie. One could argue that it is always a pleasure to watch Julia Roberts, Javier Bardem and Billy Crudup, who blessedly all played themselves and not their miserable characters, none of which I would ever want to meet.

Is there a woman -- or man -- who would not love to chuck it all for a year and travel the globe in search of self-discovery? Most of us cannot do this because we have responsibilities and loyalties and are not financially independent. This drab story fails to connect on any level except for pointless self-indulgence. Instead, treat yourself to dinner at a nice Italian restaurant, dab on a little Shalimar and watch Gone With The Wind, a truly romantic epic with a narcissistic heroine who is interesting.

Despite Angie Harmon's decent performance as a mother who suffers from Munchausen syndrome by proxy -- in the extreme -- there is no reason to waste two hours of your life watching this absurd movie. Ms. Harmon's skillful interpretation of a demented, murderous psychopath cannot offset a ridiculous script. The plot involves a wealthy couple who adopt two children, a little boy and a teenage girl. They are occupants of a Gothic mansion in an undisclosed location. Almost immediately, the teenager suspects something is amiss with this couple, but unlike most teenagers who manage to get out of the house when they want to, this one is somehow unable to do so, even to get help to save her life and that of her little brother. The fact that this is a low-budget effort becomes evident when, although the couple live in a huge house with presumably quite a bit of property, no household or grounds help or service providers ever make an appearance. Nor do any relatives, friends, neighbors or business associates show up. The children do not go to school, so no classmates, teachers, school administrators or social workers come poking around. The sole outside person is a police officer who is clueless as to the situation in which the children have been placed. Apparently no background checks were done or it would have been revealed that not only did the couple's little son die, but they also adopted another little boy whose whereabouts are unknown. This information should have given someone pause before providing these lunatics with additional children to dispose of. We're not told how the couple manages to afford such a grand home, although mom is supposedly a nurse, which makes it convenient for her to make her children very ill so she can nurse them back to health -- before she repeats the cycle. As the improbable story drags on, it focuses on mom's jealousy of the teenager and her vicious treatment of her. Although the teen attempts to contact the outside world regarding her plight, she has to be the only teen on the planet who cannot manage to get out a phone call, text message or email. The husband is a complete wimp under the spell of his deranged wife, powerless to stop her as she continues her vendetta against the young girl and repeatedly makes the little boy extremely ill. Ultimately, a light bulb goes off over the police officer's head, and he calls for help, which arrives only after he is attacked and the woman and girl battle it out. The battle culminates when, after being terrorized by Ms. Harmon's character, our teen girl merely pushes her down the stairs. But, still, the mother-of-the-year does not die until -- surprise -- father-of-the-year puts a bullet in her. To her credit, Jordan Hinson, who plays the teen, did not do an eye roll when the whole mess ended.

What could have been a decent drama about a rebellious teen who finds herself in a dangerous situation, and finally trusts her mother to help get her out of it, falls apart because of the mother's approach. In a real-life situation, when a mother finally puts together a scenario that involves the rape of her daughter's friend (who has one of those mothers who is a "friend" rather than mother to her daughter and helps the two girls in their stonewalling), the murder of a teen witness, the sabotage of her car in which she and her daughter were nearly killed, the arrest and incarceration of her daughter because someone framed her by planting drugs in her school locker, the son of the chief of police is behind it all, and a possible police cover-up, she would hire a lawyer to protect herself and her daughter. But, rather than hire an attorney to represent -- and protect -- herself and her daughter, or even go to the school authorities or her family, friends or neighbors, this mother chooses to handle this impossibly complex situation herself by leaving her daughter in jail under the supervision of a corrupt police chief while she runs around playing Nancy Drew, trying to gather evidence even while she is aware that there are murderous teens ready to strike again and a police cover-up in play. Even if she had tried, and failed, to secure legal representation or advice, it would have made a much more thrilling story. Even small towns have attorneys. The two mothers even try to make a citizen's arrest of one of the teen killers! This story is unbelievable to the point of being silly.

This is the movie that set the pace for the "other woman" genre. It broke the mold for stories of love triangles involving married men. The subject matter is daring for any era or generation, and is delivered expertly by Michael Douglas, Glenn Close and Ann Archer, who give electrifying performances.

The movie puts into sharp relief the all-too-familiar theme of the cheating husband of the long-suffering and faithful wife with the glamorous and exciting single career woman. But instead of the other woman clinging to the doomed affair by living on the periphery of the man's life, Glenn Close's character, Alex, inserts herself into the life of her new married lover, Dan, with a vengeance - literally - wreaking havoc at a level that is terrifying and thrilling. Suspense builds as Dan realizes that he has opened a Pandora's Box and tries to hide his indiscretion from his wife, Beth, whom he loves, and struggles to defend himself against the fury of the woman he has scorned. The unfolding of the story is breathtaking, and the denouement is shocking.

The movie reminds me of "Rosemary's Baby" in the way the writer and director weave everyday, normal activities with the doom that is building for Dan and his family. And, as in "Rosemary's Baby," an unstoppable chain of events has been launched, in Dan's case by his "fatal attraction" to a beautiful but unstable woman who is determined to possess him or destroy his family.

Because of its nearly flawless execution and impact, Fatal Attraction is a not-to-be-missed classic. I say "nearly flawless" because the one miscalculation was the dog; what self-respecting dog does not sense and intruder in the house?

I don't think there is a lead character in any A-List movie duller than John Klute (Donald Sutherland). For that matter, there may not be a more plodding A-List film. Not that the plot isn't suspenseful; it does have its moments, especially as Klute, aided by prostitute Bree Daniels (Jane Fonda) closes in on the man behind multiple murders whom Klute is tracking.

The film is shot in dark, moody lighting, with interesting use of light and shadows to denote the dark as well as sensual side of humanity. The music is a perfect accompaniment. The sound track ranges from hushed to sudden bursts of loud sound effects, which at times produces a chilling effect, but is often just plain annoying.

The characters are played well by an excellent cast; however, they are extremely grim; rarely does a smile escape anyone's lips. The exception is the character of Bree Daniels, which Ms. Fonda portrays as a stunning and complicated woman who carries the film. For Ms. Fonda's tour de force performance, which won her an Academy Award, the film is a must-see. In this role, Ms. Fonda solidifies her place as one Hollywood's finest film actresses, with the ability to master dramatic as well as comedic roles reminiscent of of Katherine Hepburn and Diane Keaton.

Nancy Meyers's latest offering about midlife romance is pleasant and interesting at times, but lacks the spark, energy, pathos, passion, and, yes, romance, of her earlier masterpieces, "Something's Gotta Give," and "Baby Boom," both starring the adorable and talented Diane Keaton.

Although "It's Complicated," has the astonishingly talented Meryl Streep, who has turned in a plethora of brilliant performances, she managed to phone this one in as the movie's heroine, Jane. And, the two characters who are supposed to be helping to make the romantic entanglements complicated are played flatly by Lake Bell and Steve Martin, both of whom have never been less alluring. There was no magnetism in either character to create a dilemma and conflict for the main characters. No wonder the attractive, vigorous and very sexy middle-age ex-husband, played by Alec Baldwin, fled from his vacuous and shrewish young wife – whose only thing going for her is a tall, lean body – and her bratty kid back into the arms of his intelligent. attractive and fun to be with wife, who also happens to be a professional foodie. And, it is no surprise that said ex-wife would find her upbeat and sexy ex-husband more appealing than the only other obviously available man, her architect who seems to be suffering from Botox paralysis and terminal dullness; it's one thing to be charmingly shy and sexy, quite another to be catatonic. In contrast, the heroine of "Something's Gotta Give" had a real conflict and choices: to remain alone with her fabulous career and the company of her adult daughter and dynamic sister or choose between a dashing young doctor who sweeps her off her feet or a sexy rugged individualist who plays hard to get. And, there's the point -- "It's Complicated" really isn't complicated, it's pretty sterile, while "Something's Gotta Give" was deliciously complicated, engaging and achingly romantic. In both "Something's Gotta Give" and "Baby Boom," Diane Keaton's characters were complex and nuanced -- reminiscent of Katherine Hepburn characters, where Meryl Streep's character in "It's Complicated" was sweet, pretty, wholesome and motherly - reminiscent of Doris Day's characters.

Another problem I had with "It's Complicated" was the inclusion of four women friends, all of whom except the wonderful Rita Wilson seemed clichéd and one-dimensional, rather than the one strong friend or sister, such as Frances McDormand's caustic and intellectual sister of the heroine in "Something's Gotta Give." Finally, Jane's children were too perfect – consistently well-mannered, polite to each other, respectful of their parents – automatons rather than the way children act. Had they behaved like real children, Jane's affair with her ex-husband – or anyone for that matter – would really have been complicated.

I recommend seeing "It's Complicated" once or maybe twice. However, it simply is not in the same class as "Something's Gotta Give" or "Baby Boom," both of which I have watched dozens of times. I think that's the real test of the quality and value of a movie – how many times can you view it and laugh or cry just as hard as you did the first time.

This move is one of my all-time favorites! I never get tired of watching this David-and-Goliath-themed adventure with a feminist twist. And, although it has some LOL scenes, I always choke up over the final scene and closing credits with Carly Simon's fabulous score.

The entire cast is excellent, and I agree that this is the best romantic role ever for Harrison Ford, and one of the best roles, period, of his career. Harrison has often looked uncomfortable playing domestic roles,but he is at the top of his game in this one. Sigourney Weaver is spot on as the beautiful and polished, but underhanded boss. Joan Cusack is hilarious, as always, as the heroine's loyal best friend in the secretarial pool; she has the bimbo look and routine down. And, Melanie Griffith is wonderful as the vulnerable yet steely 30-year-old secretary at a crossroads in her life and career. It is not surprising that the movie garnered one Oscar, Oscar nominations for Melanie, Sigourney and Joan, and Golden Globe awards.

The film is so inspirational and charming that one can overlook its few flaws: (1) Apparently Jack never contacts is alleged girlfriend, Katherine, when she has a skiing accident; the two seem on the verge of becoming engaged but yet they obviously have not spoken the entire time she is laid up outside the country with broken bones. Even if Jack was planning to break off the relationship with Katherine, surely he would have called to inquire after health! (2) As Tess lives with her cheating boyfriend, where does she hang her hat between the time that they break up and before she, at least temporarily, moves in with Jack? (3) How does Katherine manage to bluff her way into Tess's and Jack's deal when she does not have all the facts? Surely, she would have been found out earlier than the film indicates.

Despite these strange oversights, the film manages to make sense in the way the way that fun, audacious plots often do. And, the best part is that even today the film provides feminist history and inspiration to a new generation of young women.

Even with two of my favorite actors, Hillary Swank and Richard Gere, this movie is flat-out boring to excruciating. The only parts of interest to me were Amelia's flights, and even those seemed contrived. Yes, the romantic angle is of interest, especially with regard to the impact it had on her career, but too much emphasis was placed on her relationship with publisher George Putnam, whom she married, rather than her relationship with flying. Ms. Swank has proved that she can play a role with breathtaking passion and zeal; but not this time. She phoned it in, as did Mr. Gere. Certainly Ms. Earhart never phoned it in. What a shame. Especially as Ms. Swank was reported to be a co-producer of the movie; what was she thinking? And what's up with the writer and director? If you're going to make another movie about a historical figure, make sure it has something new to offer. Nothing new -- or exciting -- here. Don't waste your time.

Sandra Bullock, one of my favorite actresses, falls somewhere between the brilliant, confident, wise-cracking Katherine Hepburn and the more vulnerable and lovable Doris Day in her role as a successful and ruthless businesswoman (Margaret) who coerces her wimpy male assistant (Andrew, played by Ryan Reynolds) into marrying her to prevent her deportation to Canada, an occurrence that would negatively affect her career. In order to accomplish this, they must both convince the U.S. immigration authorities and his family in Alaska that theirs is not a marriage of convenience.

The problems I have are with the main characters are: How does a sophisticated, well-heeled businesswoman does not know how to dress to take a boat ride, but shows up in a business suit? How does she not know how to pull the blinds to keep the sun out of her eyes? How is it that a seemingly meek and manipulated assistant turns out to be from a wealthy and supportive family; he certainly does not have to subject himself to the demands and blackmail of his boss! It was also a shame that the background scenes were not shot in Alaska; if they had, they would have been much more breathtaking and majestic. If you can overlook these inconsistencies, "The Proposal" is fun and entertaining, thanks to the spot-on acting by the superb cast, including Bullock, Reynolds, Betty White, Mary Steenburgen and Craig T. Nelson.

Funniest scenes: The misreading by Grace and Grandma Annie of what is happening with Margaret, the eagle, the dog and the cell phone; Margaret and the male stripper.

My advice is to ignore the silly script and just enjoy the actors' witty performances.

It is always amazing to me how (1) movie companies can pass off such slop to the public and (2) how such monumentally talented, experienced and discriminating actors such as Susan Sarandon, Keith Carradine and Bill Pullman can be convinced to participate in said slop. Cillian Murphy and Ellen Page are wasted in this film. The writing, direction and acting are dreadful, and the entire effort reminded me of an experimental, indulgent student film.

The storyline is absurd. Cillian Murphy plays a deeply disturbed man who was abused as a child and expresses his resulting split personality by dressing as a woman. As a man (John), his behavior on the job -- he is a bank clerk -- is so bizarre, but yet tolerated by his boss (Pullman) and the bank's president (Carradine), who is also the mayor, and the bank president's wife (Sarandon). In a real-life situation, these folks would recognize that John is psychotic, but here everyone acts as though he is a normal as blueberry pie! When John's female alter-ego (Emma) emerges (actor Cillian in a wig, makeup and dress who looks like character John in a wig, makeup and dress -- and, actually, somewhat disturbingly like a young Mia Farrow), no one -- the boss, bank president, bank president's wife, and the Ellen Page character -- recognizes that John and Emma are the same person. The scenes in which all these characters interact with John and Emma are laughable because it is so apparent to the audience that these two are the same person. What is even more hilarious is that John and Emma never appear together although they are supposed to be man and wife. Hmm, let's examine the clues.

There are two endings, each one perplexing, as is the entire film and why it was made. If you want to be entertained by a psychological thriller in which a young man becomes psychotic because his mother drove him nuts, take another look at the outstanding classic, "Psycho," and skip this brain drain.

Some books are meant to be left in that medium and not be mucked up by trying to force them into movie form. I suppose producers, et al, who commit such an act are protected by The First Amendment, but, gee, there oughta be a law! Alice Sebold's, "The Lovely Bones," is such a book. This achingly, bittersweet story of a young girl's murder and afterlife is made gripping by the murder mystery and the heartbreaking plight of the family left behind contained therein. Perhaps there is someone out there who has just the right touch to perform the miracle of transforming this unique and creative novel into a unique and creative movie, but it was not Peter Jackson. Despite the excellent (and wasted) cast, after the opening that attempts to set up the plot, the movie is alternately confusing, annoying, tedious and pedestrian.

When an author is describing something as elusive as heaven, each reader imagines it to his own satisfaction. To leave that job to one person -- in this case, Jackson -- can be disastrous. What a shock for those of us who enjoyed Sebold's book to see a Candyland version of heaven, for example. Or to see what amounts to a magic trick when a flower rapidly opens in Susie's father's hand while Susie is touching one just like it in her mystical state. Feh!

Alice Sebold showed her readers a possibility in the wake of unbearable loss, a concept and description that could be absorbed slowly in the privacy and quiet of one's own mind. Peter Jackson shows just another disturbing comic book twist on murder and mysticism, which is light years away from the sweet, delicate touch Sebold uses in her book.

To reiterate, some books should remain books. I cannot even recommend this movie as a cheap thriller to pass the time. It's just plain disturbing, on many fronts.

Claire and Ray are gorgeous and glamorous government-turned-corporate spies who team up to steal the formula for a new product from the corporations they represent. Along the way, they engage in plenty of romance. This should have been a good movie, as the stars, Julia Roberts and Clive Owen, and the director, Tony Gilroy, are top-notch professionals with outstanding track records. But, alas, although Julia Roberts does her job, (appearing sophisticated, clever, arrogant and much smarter than her counterpart), with an unlikeable character and an impossibly complicated plot, Clive Owens simply looks pained, confused and duped throughout.

I stopped caring about the characters and trying to follow the plot and action about 10 minutes into the film. Part of the problem was the dialogue, some of which could have been written by the late, great cult director, Ed Wood (Plan Nine from Outer Space). There is a scene in which Claire uses the words, "think" and "thinking" until you cannot help but giggle at how silly she sounds, completely ruining her confident, sophisticated image.

I agree with Roger Ebert when he says that the fun is in watching Julia and Clive try to keep a straight face while reciting their lines. In addition, Julia had several scenes in which looked very grim, and could have been method acting, reflecting on what she was thinking in accepting this role.

There were a few good moments. The rival CEOs, played by a delightful but over-exposed Tom Wilkinson (what movie is he not in?), and a terrific but stilted Paul Giamatti) are more fun than the romantic spies. (Cary Grant would never have let that happen in one of his films!) And, Carrie Preston plays her role extremely well as a dupe, upstaging Julia Roberts in a scene with a brief but notable performance in which she experiences an amusing meltdown. Lisa Roberts Gillan, who plays Tully's assistant, turns in a delightful performance as the older-and-wiser, extremely competent corporate "Watson." The Hitchcockian twist at the end of the film could have been clever, but in my opinion felt flat. And, that's the movie in a word: flat.

This is a comment rather than a review. The description on this title is misleading, i.e.,: "Tensions arise when a newlywed has her husband move into the house of her verbally abusive mother."

Although the mother has many emotional and mental issues and clearly has mistreated her daughter, the daughter has similar issues and marries a rock-bottom loser, who moves in with the mother, allows her to support them and verbally abuses the mother. The mother is appropriately shocked at her daughter's choice in a husband and shows more compassion and patience by tolerating their obnoxious behavior as they take advantage of her. In my view, this is a most unpleasant movie. I have not watched all of it, but I hope the mother and daughter can come to some resolution of their mental disorders and their relationship with each other. The acting is fine, it's just not a story that appeals to me.

Of all the HP films – most of which were on the money and the Prisoner of Azkaban a brilliant offering that could stand on its own (except for the disappointing omission of Snape's fabulous tantrum when he discovers that Black has escaped from Hogwart's dungeon) – "Prince" is the one that has been messed up beyond the pale. Certainly it is a challenge to depict a book in movie form, but a skilled writer-director team could capture all the salient details and charming nuances if they so desired. This hodge-podge makes me believe that this installment was merely a throw-away from the producer's, director's and writer's viewpoint. What a shame and a waste. Makes me wonder what they are going to do to Ms. Rowling's final masterpiece, which is coming out in two parts. My confidence has been shaken. Messrs. Heyman, Yates and Kloves owe Ms. Rowling and the fans of her Harry Potter books a huge apology for phoning this one in.Summary:

Here are some points (WHICH MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS): Screenplay Deficiencies: 1) The opening, which was not in the book, portrays Harry in a light that deviates from his character, which tends to be shy around girls, by having him flirt and make a date with a waitress. This is the book that reveals Harry's romantic feelings for Ginny, so this scene hits a false, misleading and annoying note. The book's first scene with the muggle PM would have been more appropriate, or opening with the Dursleys, then into the Slughorn scene. 2) In the Slughorn opening scene, the movie (a) confuses the issue of the dragon blood, (b) overlooks the more important issue of the dark mark, (c) fails to reveal that Slughorn is a former head of Slytherin, and (d) does a poor job explaining how Slughorn is in a muggle house but all his things are there. 3) The movie spends too much time on the Ron-Hermione romance and gives short-shrift to the more important Harry-Ginny romance, which impacts the way he views his mission and future. This was a major mess-up, as the book emphasizes Harry's longing and Ginny's spunk and fire, all of which is lost in the movie. 4) The scene of the attack on the Burrow was very wrong and entirely unnecessary. The time that this scenes could have been put to use including the important points that were omitted. 5) The scene in which Hermione,Harry and Ron are leaving The Three Broomsticks depicts Hermione seemingly a bit tipsy - a totally false and shameful depiction. There are no references that I recall in any of the HP books that butterbeer is an alcoholic beverage; and, in fact, it is thought by many sources to be a non-alcoholic drink. But if butterbeer were an alcoholic beverage, the only ones who appear to be drunk on it are Messrs. Kloves and Yates, for their respective bizarre writing and careless direction. 6) The scene in which Harry and Ron exchange inane comments about Ginny's and Hermione's skin could have been eliminated in favor of a more meaningful scene to clarify Harry's feelings for Ginny and her relationship with Dean Thomas. 7) In no scene is a bezoar adequately explained, making the scene in which Ron is poisoned and Harry saves his life by using a bezoar perplexing and less effective than is should have been. 8) The tension among Harry, Ginny and Ron because of Harry's growing feelings for Ginny was both heart-tugging and comical, and was completely omitted from the movie in favor of extended scenes about Ron's infatuations. The Ron scenes were amusing, but a better balance should have been achieved. 9) The placement of the scene in which the agreement between Dumbledore and Snape is depicted was sloppy and obvious. 10) To eliminate Dumbledore's funeral at the end of the movie is unthinkable and unforgivable. This larger-than-life character and the impact his death has on the plot and remaining main characters is a key element of this installment.

Direction Deficiencies: 1) The scene in which Katy Bell is cursed, the young heroes merely stand there looking like dufuses; in the book the three rushed forward to help, and finally Harry ran to find someone to help. 2) The scene in which Ron is poisoned in Slughorn's office has Slughorn looking like a dufus, just standing there as though a student were not writhing in death throes on his floor. In the book, Slughorn is paralyzed by shock – this did not come across at all. 3) There is no chemistry between Mr. Radcliffe and Ms. Wright. They are both better actors than their few paltry scenes together indicate; so, again, very poor direction. 4) The scene in which Harry is chasing Snape and attempting to hurt or kill him with spells from the Half-Blood Prince's spell book has Snape announcing to Harry that he is the Half-Blood Prince in the same tone of voice he might use to order a glass of mead at the Three Broomsticks. In the book, he is screaming at Harry in a mad rage that he is the Half-Blood Prince. 5) The fiery Maggie Smith sleepwalked through her scenes as the fiery Prof. McGonagall. Why bother caring when the director doesn't care?