I see you your "Epic" and Victor Mature movies and raise you "The Manitou." I think I was on a date when I was subjected to this 1978 movie that, according to the IMDB, offers the following plot line: A psychic's girlfriend finds out that a lump on her back is a growing reincarnation of a 400-year-old demonic, dwarf Native American spirit. And, Linda C, Tony Curtis starred as the psychic. I don't remember much about it other than it was bad, bad, bad. Runner up might be the last remake of "The Island of Dr. Moreau" with Marlon Brando and Val Kilmer. It was far more awful than it should have been.

We just saw The Queen. I think we're about done with the Oscars although we might still see Notes on a Scandel and both Little Miss Sunshine and Water are coming from Netflix. The Queen had very good acting but I didn't think the story was that interesting. But I've always considered royalty to be rather useless and expensive so I didn't care that much about the queen or her struggles. Diane described Pan's Labyrinth quite well. It is mostly a war story with some fantasy elements. The grisly part is mostly the fights between the army and the rebels which does include the aftermath of the torture of one of the rebels (although thankfully it does not show the actual torture). I feel sorry for my mother right now. She likes to watch the movies on our top ten lists for the year but she hates violence. And pretty much the only non-violent movie on my top ten is Shortbus which has a lot of graphic sex. So I can't exactly recommend that one to her either. I think she'd really like Volver though and all the violence in that is off-screen so I think that one is okay at least.

I finally saw it, late last night. I felt a knot in my gut get tighter and tighter as the scenes passed and the drama of desperation accumulated. But other than that, the movie did not cause any intense or unusual emotional disturbance in me. I thought it was exceptionally, commendably well done. DW even went with me, and for once, we both came through about identically, emotionally. DW was offended because it seemed to her like the military characters were singled out for put-downs. It looked to her like there was an imbalance of portrayal of the military folks, compared to the other responders, as the least intelligent, most disorganized and otherwise most inept. I didn't take it that way, although I understand why she would. But really, the attacks were not something anyone was well-rehearsed in responding to. (Who's all set to execute plans to respond to an earthquake in Chicago? Or a bee swarm in a shopping mall, for that matter?) There probably would have been unnecessary shootdowns if the President's orders had been passed. That's the kind of thing that happens simply because of the "fog of war," absent any blood lust, overreaction, or insubordination. I thought the commanders' declining to pass the shootdown orders was as brave and admirable an action as the passengers' revolt. I guess I brought that up because I'm familiar with air-to-air scenarios. For irony in personal experience, just this past week I watched The Godfather Part III on DVD. Weird movie, but I suppose it was a way to bring some kind of closure to the first two parts. Anyway, one very good line in it was: "Don't hate your enemies; it clouds your judgment." I think United 93's most clever quality was its portrayal in a way that did not strive to focus viewers' empathy toward either hijackers, or passengers, or other responders, or other less involved characters. Portrayal with any hint of "partisanship" would have disserved the public and cheapened the movie. The media are already far too full of historical portrayals that stoke already existing hatreds (and create new ones), such that too many people are fighting the war we are in with clouded judgment. It's one thing for combatants to adopt, or reject, one another's strategies, tactics, methods, ideas or styles. But it's self-defeating to the warrior who lets propaganda affect how he "feels about" his enemy. I ached after the movie, not because of it, but because there aren't more like it, especially covering the current war.

Yes, we saw it. I thought it was very well done and agree with your comments. The acting was superb. I thought the the costuming was very nicely done too. Their clothes were perfect. The apartment was wonderful and the kitchen struck me as well. It reminded me of my grandparents place in their final years. Then I remembered that old charming buildings just don't always have old charming kitchens. Two DSs live in NYC in pre-war apts in great old buildings with kitchens that don't have the charm and character of the rest of the space. Seems the bathroom was kind of like that in the movie as well, though old bathrooms sometimes have old charming tile even if the tub is shot and lighting terrible. Though hardly an uplifting film, I was glad to have seen it and felt it compelling. I didn't tear up watching it, but was "spent" at the end. We all have our time and the road out of here may not be exactly what we or our loved ones would choose. Amour has the oldest actress nominated. Did you see the film with the youngest? Beasts of the Southern Wild. Any thoughts on that one? I have seen it as well. Have you seen The Master? I need to get to Life of Pi and Django.......