Eating Later

“Delay, Don’t Deny”  (2017©)  —  book review
Today’s book is “Delay, Don’t Deny“, written by Gin Stephens.  The book was loaned to me by my sister while we were visiting for the Labor Day BBQ at her house.  The book is sub-titled: “Living an Intermittent Fasting Lifestyle“.   Basically, the book is a cheer-leading exercise for the “One-Meal-A-Day” (OMAD) intermittent fasting protocol which the author feels should be adopted not as a “diet”, but as a “lifestyle”.  In other words, once you start, you can’t go back.  The author’s claim goes beyond that.  She believes the benefits will be so obvious to you that you will choose to never go back (to your old eating habits / lifestyle).
The book is very short – only 155 pages.  It is written in a very friendly and easy to read style with short chapters and a few photos thrown in.  I would estimate a reader could speed through this book in a day (evening) if you were motivated to just sit still.  It took me a couple of days to get to it and then I read a couple of chapters a night before turning off the light.
In full disclosure:  I turned my sister on to Alternate Day Fasting, which is one form of intermittent fasting, so I am already a “true believer”.  I believe in fasting as a jump start to a healthier lifestyle and have done strict veggie broth fasts and veggie / fruit juice fasts of various duration’s over the last thirty-five years.  I have tried (and consider myself still on) an alternate day fasting protocol and it was working for a couple of weeks before “life” got in the way.  Besides my excuses, I feel the ADF or “modified ADF”  (MODF)- which is what I am / was trying – is a workable lifestyle for me.  Prior to reading this book, this (a MODF) is what I was planning to return to when I finish my current (12 completed days) veggie-juice / blended fast.  After reading this book, I think I will substitute the OMAD for the MADF.
So, what is a one-meal-a-day fasting lifestyle?  According to the author, you can eat anything you want and as much as you want, but only for / at one meal a day.  You have a window for eating each day.  The window may be as long as eight hours or as short as one hour.  The remaining hours in the day, you are fasting.  “Fasting” means water, black coffee or unflavored green or black tea.  No sweeteners.  No creamers.  The more common windows are: “8/16”, “6/18” and “4/20”.  This varies from the traditional alternate day fasting in that with OMAD, you do eat EVERY day.  In the ADF, you eat no more than 500 calories (female) or 700 calories (male) on your “fasting” days and you eat whatever you want (whatever you normally eat) on the alternate eating day.  An eating window is also recommended for both the ADF and the MADF.  In fact, many proponents suggest you water fast on occasion just to super-charge the process.  The water fast is also frequently added to the “5:2” version of the ADF.  In the 5:2, you eat within an eight hour window five days a week and then water fast for two days.  You can pick the two days and they don’t have to be consecutive days – just any two out of the seven day week.  The 5:2 is briefly mentioned in the book, but the author does not favor it.
The author does not discuss sleeping, but this is a critical part of the ADF protocol.  You are expected to get 7 to 8 hours of continuous sleep each day for the ADF protocol.  This is where I definitely have a problem with ADF.  I typically can only manage six hours and almost never get over seven.  This is mostly a bad “lifetime” habit of mine.  As it’s not mentioned in the book, I guess the author doesn’t feel it’s that critical for OMAD.
The strength of this book is its approachability, both in ease of reading and in terms of the protocol.  She says:  “Try it.  You’ll like it!”  In fact, she believes you’ll like it so much, you’ll feel comfortable dropping it for special occasions (vacations, holiday weekends, Christmas, etc.) and then you’ll recognize you are out of sync with your body and want to drop back into the protocol.
The book has a particularly useful section listing the author’s favorite books (15) about alternate day fasting and intermittent fasting.  The author says these books contain all the science which she has chosen not to include in her own book.  She writes a paragraph or so on why each book is recommended.  Many of the authors of these books I was already familiar with from watching their videos on YouTube.
Final recommendation:  Very highly recommended!!  I fully intend to give this protocol a go whenever I finally come off of my current blend fast.  I will be sure to include updates in future posts.
.
On This Day In:
2018	Here And Hope
2017	Choose
2016	All I Ever Wanted
2015	Compassionate Toward Yourself
2014	All And None
2013	Voices In The Dark
2012	Does Uncommonly Flexible = Flip-Flopping?
2011	A Modest Review Of A Modern Day Classic
	Encouragement Is The Path To Immortality

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Basic Training (In Films)

Caution: this is a relatively long post reviewing two movies…  You’ve been warned.
Today’s reviews are re-watches from my childhood:  “Tribes” (1970) and “The D.I.” (1957).  Both are movies about being in Marine Corps Boot Camp.  “The D.I.” was released when I was two years old, so I obviously never saw it on original release, but I remember seeing it in my early teens.  “Tribes” I saw on its original TV broadcast.  I recently discovered / watched both movies on YouTube.
“The D.I.” — movie review
If you’ve ever wondered what “Dragnet” would look like if it were turned into Marine Corps Boot Camp, this is the movie for you.  The movie stars Jack Webb (who also produced and directed the film) as Sergeant Jim Moore who is a Drill Instructor (“D.I.”) at Paris Island.  His job is to turn civilians into Marines and he has a problem in the person of Private Owens (played by Don Dubbins).  Whenever Owens feels he’s under pressure, he quits / gives up.  The company Captain (Lin McCarthy) feels Moore is getting soft and orders Moore to bring Owens around or get rid of him.
There are (of course) side issues:  one – Moore is falling for a shop clerk (Jackie Loughery) named “Annie”, which is wrecking his “tough-guy” Marine self-image;  and, two – Owens’ mother (Monica Lewis) appeals to Moore that she coddled Owens and she lost her husband (in WWII) and her two older sons (in Korea).  She wants Moore to make her son into a Marine or he won’t be able to live with himself.
This movie is shot in black and white and it is fairly dark.  I guess as a nod to realism, the movie has a scene with Moore and Annie which (shockingly) edges very close to date rape.  It doesn’t happen, but I was surprised it was even implied in a movie from that period.  Incidentally, in real life, Loughery married Webb the following year (1958).  Despite this being a “Webb” movie (“Just the facts, Ma’am…”), from the 50’s, it is also a happily ever after ending movie – for the Private / mom and the Sergeant / clerk.  Who woulda guessed?
Final recommendation: moderate to strong.  Viewed as a “Webb” production, this is a classic.  As a period piece, I would say it’s still pretty much a classic.  This movie was my first introduction to the concept of “Basic Training / Boot Camp”, and I remember it had a fairly strong effect on my impressionable mind.  Don’t get me wrong, this movie is not a cinematic “classic” and it’s really only a fair movie, but, in watching it, it reminded me of the simpler times of my childhood when things did seem more “black-and-white”.
“Tribes” — movie review
“Tribes” is not strictly speaking a “real” movie.  Back in the 1970’s, one of the main TV networks (ABC) used to run what it called the: “ABC Movie of the Week“.  Some of the ninety minute movies were pretty good and some even became TV series in their own right.
“Tribes” is a movie about a free-spirited (that’s “hippie”) individual who joins the Marine Corps and who has to go to (and survive) Boot Camp.  It stars Jan-Michael Vincent as the free-spirited Private Adrian, Darren McGavin as Gunnery Sergeant Thomas Drake, and Earl Holliman as Chief Drill Instructor (and Drake’s boss) Master Sergeant Frank DePayster.
The movie always seemed to me to be a message about the changing times of the 1960’s / 1970’s in America.  You’ve got two straight-arrow Marine lifers, but one has a streak of decency and the other does not.  Ultimately, the leadership abilities of the young recruit pushes not only his platoon to excel, but also to win over the D.I. nominally there to break his individuality and “turn him into” a Marine who will follow orders.
Final recommendation: strong to highly recommended.  I was very surprised how much of this movie I could recall after nearly 50 years from my first (and only) viewing.  LoL – this movie also introduced me to meditation / alternative states of consciousness and boxers vs briefs.
I am very biased towards this movie as it had a personal effect on me when I was in Basic Training for the Army four years later.  When I was learning to fire the M16, I asked my Drill Sergeant why we used “human” silhouettes instead of “bulls-eye” targets, he replied, “because we want you to learn to shoot at people.”  He went on to explain Fort Ord (where I had my Basic Training) had the highest casualty and injury statistics of any of the training facilities which sent soldiers to Vietnam.  It was determined this was because “West Coast” city boys didn’t shoot at other humans instinctively.  Using silhouettes, trained them to shoot as a reaction instead of pausing to take aim.  Fortunately, I never had to put this to the test…
.
On This Day In:
2018	Being President Doesn’t Make You Presidential
	Day 27: 4 Weeks / 55lbs
2017	I’m Seeing It, Too
2016	Personal Decisions
2015	Verbal Fluency
2014	Familiar
2013	Unbending
2012	Simple Sayings
2011	Wupped Again?
2010	3 and 1…
	Musical Notes…
	Doubt Tries…
	Northwest Passages – Evening Two
	The Beierly’s Web Site

Read Full Post »

Original Chips

“Goodbye, Mr. Chips”  (1939)  —  movie review
Haec olim meminisse iuvabit.
—  Virgil
From the “Aeneid“
(Translated:  “Someday, perhaps, it will be delightful to remember even this.”)
Today’s review is for the black and white classic from 1939: “Goodbye, Mr. Chips” starring Robert Donat in his Best Actor Oscar winning performance as Mr. Arthur Chipping a classics (“Latin and Greek”) subject master (instructor) at a British boarding school.  The movie was up for six other Oscars but was mightily steamrolled by “Gone With The Wind” (GWTW).  Greer Garson plays his wife Katherine Chipping and Garson was nominated for best Actress.  (She lost to Vivien Leigh in GWTW, steamroll remember.)
Anyway, at the start of the film, an elderly Chipping falls asleep in front of a fireplace and dreams of his life (68 years teaching at an all-boys “public” school).  The memories trace his rough start at the school; his early years of struggle in the profession; his falling in love and brief marriage which results in his personal and professional blossoming; and, then the long years where he becomes a virtual institution at the school.  His longevity provides him the opportunity to teach multiple generations of young boys / men from the same families.  From our perspective, we see him age (and grow) as a teacher and as a man.
Although this movie only garnered one Oscar, it is a “CLASSIC” in every sense of the word.  It addresses friendship, loyalty, romance, shyness, love, loss, education standards, and last, but not least, the inherent value of morals, of commitment and of perseverance.
Final recommendation: very highest!  This is a movie everybody should see (and almost all will enjoy).  It is definitely among the top ten of my all-time favorite movies.
The quote from Virgil (above) is from the movie.  It is the line Chips relates in his retirement ceremony before the assembled school.
As a side note: This story (along with “Pride & Prejudice“) is one of my favorites in all of cinema.  There are several other versions / adaptations of the original book (1934 — reviewed here), which include a musical version (1969 — reviewed here) starring Peter O’Toole and Petula Clark, a BBC version (2002) starring Martin Clunes as Chips, and an earlier BBC version (1984) starring Roy Marsden as Chips.  The book review, linked above, is the same link for the BBC versions.  All four (book and three adaptations) were reviewed in posts by me back in February, earlier this year.
.
On This Day In:
2018	Still Blogging
2017	Reliable Vision
2016	Still Walking
2015	Steps
2014	To Be Greatly Good
2013	Limited Capacity
2012	Two Ear Ticklers
	Justification
2011	To Avail The Nation

Read Full Post »

Bigger Jaws

“The Meg” (2018) — movie review
“The Meg” is basically a “Jaws” remake / update starring Jason Statham as Jonas Taylor.  It’s a science-fiction / action movie.  There are, of course, a bunch of other actors in the film, but the movie is really about Statham killing a big fish.  Unlike “Jaws“, where the other two main actors contributed to the story line, these folks are just chum or wanna-be chum.
A supposedly extinct “shark” (technically a “Megalodon”) gets free from its entrapped environment and kills some scientists.  Taylor escapes the attack and wallows in survivor guilt.  Shark / Meg starts attacking other people.  Taylor gets a call for help.  “No, no, no.  Okay, I’ll help.”  (Not the actual dialogue, but close enough…)
Shark / Meg continues to attack ships, people, whales, beaches, small dogs, more people.  Blah, blah, blah.  Taylor kills shark / Meg.  And they all lived happily ever after.
Is the movie any good as a “Jaws” remake?  Is it any good on its own?  No and yes.  Statham is okay in the lead role.  It’s not great acting, but it is serviceable.  The action scenes / special effects are ok to very good, but like most of these “larger-than-life” monster movies, the director / producers don’t quite settle on the size of the monster.   This is acceptable because it is so common.  Heck, even the original “Jaws” suffered from this problem.  For me, even though the updated effects were good, the movie lacked tension and really felt like it was just going through the motions for those who were too young to have seen the original.
Final recommendation: moderate to almost strong.  The action is ok.  The acting is ok.  The effects are ok to good.  The movie is what it is: “OK”.  The movie just flat out lacked the pizzazz / suspense of the original.  If you are going to watch this movie, view the original first.  It won’t detract from this version and you’ll get a grounding in understanding that better technology doesn’t always make a better movie (remake).  The movie is rated about a 4.5 on RottenTomatoes.com, which I think is probably a bit low.
.
On This Day In:
2018	Hoping For A Blue Wave In November
2017	Garden Dreaming
2016	Well, Maybe Not “No” Talent
2015	An Appetite For Life
	A Trip To The Library
	Great Expectations
2014	Pass The Soul
2013	Zapping Music And Art
2012	Not Quite Fantastic
	That Kid Is Back
2011	Wolves At The Door
2010	I’m Feeling Patriotic… (Well, more than usual, anyway.)
	Beating the Heat…

Read Full Post »

Just The Three Of Us

Z For Zachariah (2015)  —  movie review
Today’s review is for the post-apocalyptic survival movie “Z For Zachariah” starring Margot Robbie as Ann Burden (the farm girl), Chiwetel Ejiofor as John Loomis (the scientist), and Chris Pine as Caleb (the country boy).
The basic setup is “something” happens to the world and it becomes a radioactive waste.  It’s implied this is due to an exchange of nuclear weapons, but I don’t remember it being precisely stated.  Anyway, the movie starts with the farm girl being all alone.  It appears she has been alone for at least a full year, as she relates surviving a winter.  A scientist enters the frame.  He has managed to survive because he has a suit, drugs and a small, portable shelter.  However, he falls ill from exposure to radioactive water. The girl nurses him back to health.
Despite her encouragement, he resists becoming intimate with her.  He appears to have memories of happier times with an African-American female, but her status is unknown.  Eventually, loneliness overcomes hesitancy and the two become intimate.
After some period of time, another man (Pine / the country boy) appears on the scene.  There is no real explanation for his survival because he lacks the suit, drugs or shelter of the scientist, but whatever…
Slowly, the three begin trusting each other and working together.  Ejiofor / the scientist continues to have bad feelings about intimacy with a white female and “gives” permission to the country boy to become intimate with Robbie / the farm girl.  One night, the scientist gets drunk and passes out.  The farm girl and the country boy engage in sex.
The following day, the “social” dynamic has changed and conflict seems inevitable.  The two men continue working together.  One day, the country boy places himself in a hazardous situation.  The scientist saves the country boy, but at the very instant of safety, the two men lock eyes.
The scene shifts back to the farmhouse and the scientist is again alone with the farm girl.  He tells her the country boy has decided to move on.  The movie ends with no resolution of whether or not the country boy was killed and / or if two remaining survivors reestablish their relationship.
Final recommendation: moderate to strong.  I like all three actors in most of the other roles I’ve seen them in – Pine less than Robbie or Ejiofor, and this film is no exception.  The movie is interesting as a character study of the three “types”, but it didn’t really seem to have a direction which engaged me or made me want to root for any of the actors.  As such, despite it being beautifully filmed and reasonably well acted, I was left with feeling piqued but not fully entertained.  Hence, my recommendation is more “moderate” than “strong”.
.
On This Day In:
2018	Sounds Like #45’s White House
2017	Have We Started Winning Yet?
2016	Still Springy
2015	Well Concealed
2014	The History Of Warriors
2013	A Cult Of Ignorance
2012	Counting Valor
	Understanding Faith
2011	I Can Hear You Now
2010	Inception

Read Full Post »

Austen Stalking

Continuing in my pursuit of viewing all things “Pride & Prejudice“, I offer two more tangential movie reviews: “Pride & Prejudice & Zombies” and “Austenland” and a third made for TV series: “Lost in Austen“.  The reviews are in the order I watched them, not in preference or year of release.  Because this post covers three “films”, it will be considerably longer than normal.  Feel free to skip it and come back another time if you’re not “into” P&P.
“Lost in Austen” (2008) – TV Series 4 part on YouTube
This is a four part TV mini-series for a privately owned (not-BBC) channel in England called ITV.  The movie is a rom-com adaptation of Jane Austen’s “Pride & Prejudice” book, but is really kind of a “Back to the Future” (back to reality?) feel.  Basically, the lead (Amanda Price, played by Jemima Rooper) is so in love with the book, she stumbles into it through a portal in her bathroom.  She retains all of her knowledge of the book and Elizabeth Bennet (played by Gemma Arterton) “replaces” her in our time.  Basically, what happens in a romance story if you know all the story but as soon as you join the story, the story is irrevocably altered.  Mostly, comedy (and romance) ensues.
The rest of the main characters are: Elliot Cowan as Fitzwilliam Darcy, Tom Mison as Mr Bingley, Morven Christie as Jane Bennet, Tom Riley as George Wickham, Hugh Bonneville as Mr. Claude Bennet, and Alex Kingston as Mrs. Bennet.
Once you know the premise, the TV-series is 70-80% predictable.  Given that, I still enjoyed it.  Rooper is not brilliant, but she carries the load and does it more than adequately.  Cowan is not “my” idea of Mr. Darcy, but he’s not bad.  Strike that.  He is better than most.  He is stern and formal without being Hollywood handsome.  And then he comes out of the pond…  LoL!  Adequate is true with the rest of the cast with the exception of Bonneville.  For whatever reason (mostly “Downton Abbey“, I think), I really like him as an actor and I thought he is very good as Mr. Bennet adding depth which is not always in some of the other portrayals in other versions of P&P.
The series uses the characters from P&P and kind-of follows the novel’s plot, but has (and ends with) significant variance.  Final recommendation: strong.  If you are a “P&P” fan, I think you’ll enjoy this series as an addition / alternate universe to Austen’s P&P.  If not, it is at least tolerable as rom-coms go.  I found it better than “tolerable”, but that may just be my taste.  If you are not a “P&P” or rom-com fan, why are you even bothering to read this review? (Just kidding…)
I watched this on YouTube for free and I would definitely consider buying it if it ever came out in my price range ($5).  Each episode is about 40-45 minutes, so you are looking at almost three hours of viewing commitment.
“Pride & Prejudice & Zombies” (2016)
I know that “everything” goes better with Zombies these days, but I really didn’t know what to expect before viewing this version of P&P.  I need to preface this review with a comment: I am not a horror or slasher film watcher.  Mostly, I find them repetitive, boring, or offensive. I stopped watching them about 1977 or so.  I very occasionally will touch base with one if it becomes a “societal” touchstone, but even then, it’s rare.  I have never seen a Jason, 13th, Halloween, Hellraiser, Saw or any of those series.  I have seen and do like some of the classics: “Wolfman“, “Psycho“, “Jaws“, etc and I also enjoy “monster / SciFi” films: “Predator“, “Alien“, “The Birds“.  I’m not sure why I like some and not others. I guess it’s just me.
Anyway, this is actually a rom-slash / martial arts / action film.  It is a “take-off” on P&P, so I thought I’d give it a chance.
Lily James plays Elizabeth Bennet, Sam Riley plays Mr. Darcy, Lena Headey plays Lady Catherine de Bourgh, Matt Smith plays Mr. Collins, Jack Huston plays Mr. Wickham and Charles Dance plays Mr. Bennet.  I like Lily James and love Lena Heady.  James makes a surprisingly good martial artist actor.  I don’t know how much is actually James doing the fighting, but “her” portions looked great.  Headey plays her typically serious role, even when it’s in a ridiculous role, like this one.  (I love the eye-patch.)  Dr. Who, I mean Matt Smith is outstanding as the incompetent and obsequious Collins.  Riley is handsome and gallant enough as Darcy, but seems (to me) a bit too young (and movie handsome, not really ruggedly handsome).  He looks like he should be in a boy band instead of on a parapet killing zombies.  And, finally, I liked Dance as Mr. Bennet.  I haven’t cared for him as much in other roles (GOT and “The Imitation Game“), but I thought he fit in this role.
Between the two threads, P&P and the zombies, this movie is 90% predictable.  The 10% which was unpredictable was whether James, Headly and the other ladies could pull off the martial arts scenes.  They do and quite well, too!
As a P&P fan, my final recommendation is moderate to strong.  I liked the sets, the costumes and the martial art set pieces.  I enjoyed this movie as a different “parody / take” on P&P even though I didn’t care for any of the zombie portions of the film.  They were merely action figures inserted to give the main characters moving targets to slice and dice.  I watched this on my “On Demand” TV service.  I’m not sure if I enjoyed it enough to actually buy a copy if ever comes in to my price point (yeah, still $5).  Despite James and Headey, I’m not sure I’d pay for this P&P theme movie.  And the movie ends as a setup to a sequel (which I will probably miss).
Austenland (2013)
This movie is supposed to be a “rom-com” about a late-20’s young lady who visits a theme park dedicated to re-enacting Jane Austen period life, social settings and romance.  The problem is while there is romance, there is almost no comedy.
So, who’s in this movie? It stars Keri Russell as Jane Hayes (the Austen fanatic), J.J. Feild as Henry Nobley (kind of a Mr. Darcy who looks vaguely like Tom Hiddleston), Bret McKenzie as Martin (the love interest for Russell’s character in the park), Jennifer Coolidge as Miss Elizabeth Charming (I thinks she was meant to be the comedic character, but she is an offensive “rich, unread, ugly American” instead – but with a kind heart), Georgia King as Lady Amelia Heartwright (another offensive rich guest – also American), and Jane Seymour as Mrs. Wattlesbrook (the proprietor of the resort).  There are also a number of other characters who aren’t really worth bothering to mention.
Russell is a “girl-next-door” version of Michelle Pfeiffer.  To be honest, I thought Russell might be Pfeiffer’s daughter or much younger sister.  She is the second best thing in this movie.  Feild is the first.  He makes both an interesting Nobly (Mr. Darcy) and a likeable history teacher.  The only other “interesting” actor was Seymour playing a manipulative park director.  The camera (or director or makeup crew) was not kind to her in this film.  She looks old in her closeups – much more than the early 60’s she would have been when this was filmed / released.  And not, evil / craggy / old – just old.  Like I said, “interesting”.
Final recommendation: moderate (at best). I did like Russell and Feild and thought there was pretty good chemistry between them.  So, “rom” is the limit of this rom-com.  As a P&P fan, at least I can say I gave it a shot and watched it.
Thanks to any of you who made it all the way through this post / these reviews…
.
On This Day In:
2018	Dead Red
	You Ain’t Done Yet
2017	Just Because
2016	As Close As They Can Get
2015	And So I Blog
2014	Take Flight
2013	Contributing Joy
2012	More Than A Race
2011	Institutionalized Leadership

Read Full Post »

Almost Hallmark

“Just Friends” (2005) — movie review
Today’s review is for the “Christmas” rom-com, “Just Friends” staring Ryan Reynolds as Chris Brander and Amy Smart as Jamie Palamino – the two love interests.  Other actors of note are Anna Faris, Chris Klein, Chris Marquette as Mike Brander (Ryan / Chris’ younger brother) and Julie Hagerty as Carol Brander (Ryan / Chris’ mother).  In full disclosure mode: I thought this movie starred Reynolds and Kate Hudson.  I didn’t read the promo and I was expecting Hudson for the first ten minutes.  So, she (Hudson) never shows up and instead we get Smart who is (to me) more of a “Hallmark Movie” / girl next door rom-com female lead.  In absolutely full honestly, this whole movie seems like the production value of a Hallmark Movie — not BAD, but not really good, either.
The movie revolves around the idea of if / whether two lifelong childhood friends (a beautiful girl and an overweight nerd), who separate for ten years after high school can meet again and become more than “just friends“.  The movie opens with a high school graduation party and Chris awkwardly declaring his “love” for Jamie.  Embarrassed by all the other teens at the party, Chris vows to leave town and make something of himself.  The obvious problem with this opening is getting two actors in their late 20’s (I’d guess 28 or 29) to play kids of 18.  Even in a “fat-suit”, Reynolds doesn’t look like a teen.  He also doesn’t look fat.  And, putting Smart in a cheer-leading outfit doesn’t make her look young, either.
We flash-forward ten years and Chris is in California, has lost a bunch of weight and has become a famous music producer / agent / publicist.  (I wasn’t exactly clear what he did.)  Through the stupidity of his current client (Anna Faris) he ends up back near his home town and stuck because she has set fire to the jet they were traveling in.  This is just before Christmas, so Chris decides to take his client to his parents home while the repairs get done.  (Okay, so it’s a stretch…)  And, then we get to meet his ditzy mom, played by Julie Hagerty.  My first reaction was: “Wow! It’s the flight attendant from ‘Airplane’!”  We also get to meet little brother: Mike.  Mike happens to be a mad-fan of the client, with her posters and magazine pictures lining his bedroom walls.  Mike and Chris have a “typecast” brothers-always-fight-and-slag-each-other thing going on.
Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention Chris’ response to the party is reflected in LA where he is a cad with women, a jerk around co-workers and for some unknown reason, a hockey star in an amateur / friendly league.  It’s only “unknown” at the time, this becomes a plot device a few minutes later in the film.  Actually, the entire movie is a series of plot devices which are introduced from left field and which then become a part of a (and sometimes two) major scene(s) later in the film.
Anyway, the two friends meet again and “suddenly” Jamie is attracted to Chris.  They agree to a lunch date – cause opposite-sex friends “do” lunch; potential lovers “do” dinner dates.  Which leads to a kids hockey game; which leads to an accident; which leads to the competing love interest (Chris Klein) – who happens to be an EMT.  So, blah, blah, blah…  Chris and Jamie admit their love for each other and happily ever after.
And, that’s about it.  From start to finish almost nothing is predictable.  What?  But, didn’t you just say…?
Okay.  This is a “rom-com” so almost everything is going to be predictable.  And, it ALL is.  The kicker is that it is actually entirely predictable, but still funny.  In a strange, bad acting, bad writing, crappy props foreshadowing kind of way, the movie works and it IS funny.  Not side-splitting, lose your breath funny, but just dumb enough or silly enough to prompt a smile, a chuckle or a snort / short belly-laugh funny.
Final recommendation: medium. This is more of a com-rom than a rom-com, but that’s okay.  Actually, I’m pretty sure, I prefer it that way.  The movie ends with Reynolds doing a closing credits song / lip-sync.  I guess this closing credits scene is kind of his “thing” as he also did it in “The Proposal” and his Deadpool movies.  I am now “officially” a Ryan Reynolds fan.  I loved him in “Deadpool” and “The Hitman’s Bodyguard“, enjoyed him in the Deadpool sequel, enjoyed him in “The Proposal“, liked him in “Green Lantern” and I thought he was okay in the X-man movie. I now have look out for some of his dramatic roles to see if he’s any good in those.  If anyone reading this has any recommendations, please leave me a comment…
.
On This Day In:
2018	Daydreams And Wanna-Be’s
	Or Work For #45
2017	Summer Pale
2016	Ain’t It Funny
2015	At Both Ends
2014	Whiner(s)
2013	Just Passing Through
2012	Dog-gone Heaven
2011	Occasional, Sad Results

Read Full Post »