Lauren Loves Movies

Teens nowadays may be all about the Apatow movies (“Knocked Up,” “Superbad”), but back in my day we turned to Jim, Kevin, Oz, Finch and the Stifmeister for our dose of raunch and shocking sexcapades.

It's been nearly ten years since we last caught up with the gang, and that's in part what makes “American Reunion,” the 4th installment in the “American Pie” series, so much fun. Now adults in their early 30’s, everyone returns to East Great Falls for the class of ‘99 high-school reunion. We get a quick little catch-up on where life has taken each of the 5 guys: Jim (Jason Biggs) and Michelle (a rather matronly looking Alyson Hannigan) are married and have a 2-year old son. Kevin (Thomas Ian Nicholas) is a househusband. Oz (Chris Klein) is a famous sports newscaster. Finch (Eddie Kaye Thomas) has been traveling the world. “Morning co-workers and cocksuckers!’ greets office-worker Stifler (Seann William Scott) – oh yes, the boys are back!

Brimming with nostalgia, “Reunion” was like a private joke the whole theater was in on. A character whips out his iPhone to show a YouTube video of Jim dancing half naked for Nadia in his bedroom. Jim’s dad (Eugene Levy, who is easily the funniest part of the movie) tries to have a father/son heart-to heart sex talk. And how could we forget Jim's infamous sock -- which makes a lovely little cameo during the traditional sex-gone-wrong opening.

The “American Pie” movies all follow a very similar pattern, with their signature type of humor – mainly the out-of-whack gross out/sexual happenings that cause us to be simultaneously cringing and cracking up. There may not be anything new here, but these guys still play off each other so well that it was more than believable that a bunch of full-grown men would get back to their outrageous old antics after all this time. Though at some points the attempt to create a commotion played up unnecessary subplots that the movie may have been better off without. Does anyone really buy a hot 18 year-old aggressively trying to lose her virginity to Jason Biggs?


Undeniably better than “American Wedding,” “American Reunion” hit home for me more than the second and revived my love of the one that started it all. Despite all of the shenanigans going on, the references to the 90’s, rekindling of old feelings with first loves, and the message that it feels like no time has passed when true friends reunite carried “American Reunion” a long and heartfelt way.

And the reminder of the alternative use of a flute wasn’t too bad, either.

Rating: B

Of all the films to receive harsh backlash in the years following their success, “Titanic” has probably suffered it the most. After its 1997 release, “Titanic” went on to win 11 Academy Awards and hit the billion-dollar mark at the box office, which earned it the title of highest grossing movie of all time until James Cameron’s “Avatar” was released in 2009. It was the world’s favorite film. People saw it two, three, four times in theaters, just to re-experience the ultimate visual spectacle.

In the 15 years that have passed since its original theatrical release, something has changed though. People have forgotten what it was about “Titanic” that made them spend precious time and money to see the movie multiple times. It’s not uncommon for someone to mention the movie in conversation only to be met with an eye-roll. Mind you, these are the same people that loved it when it first came out.

As one of the movies that I see being playing on TV nearly every single time I turn the television on, I think therein may lie the problem. People haven’t forgotten – at least they don’t think they have. “Titanic” is one of those movies that you feel like you remember every scene as if you just watched it yesterday: the “flying” scene, Jack drawing Rose, the sinking, old Rose throwing the Heart of the Ocean into the water. But if there is one film that is unfit for television, it’s “Titanic.” You may have watched part of it on TV last year while flipping channels, maybe you saw it in theaters so many times that you feel you need never see it again. Neither qualifies. Most people haven’t sat down and watched the movie, all 3 hours and 15 minutes of it, from beginning to end, in years – maybe since its 1997 release. It’s a big chunk of movie, so that’s not surprising. But the 3D re-release is a fleeting opportunity to see a film that is not only a pop culture phenomenon, but also one of the greatest disaster films ever made, on the big screen, the way it was meant to be seen, once again.


It’s hard to properly remember a movie when only watching random snippets at a time. You can watch those famous scenes on YouTube or TV a million times, and none of them will ever have the impact they do when watched all together, as one single entity. When going to see a movie in theaters, you’re committing to sit there and watch for a designated amount of time. With “Titanic,” you allow yourself to be reintroduced to the characters and the unforgettable love story. In recent years the romance aspect has been boiled down to little more than its iconic scenes. However when watched from the very beginning, it’s so evident what made Jack a character that girls all around the world fell in love with, and what made this a love story that won over everyone’s hearts. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Jack with this soft, lighthearted quality that you rarely see in his current work. When they’re first getting to know each other you see the flirtatious chemistry budding. When Jack decides to give Rose the piece of wood to lay on when submerged in the freezing water at the end, you see the resolution in his eyes, that he has made the decision to save her instead of himself.

I’m not saying you should go see Titanic 3D because of the added dimension – I would be saying all of this even if it were being released without the 3D. Maybe it’s an incentive for fans to see it presented in a way they haven’t seen before. The 3D is certainly impressive, and completely in line with what we’ve come to expect from Cameron’s masterful use of the technology. It’s what I like to call “classy” 3D; it’s subtle and noninvasive, yet used to give the film some extra depth and oomph – as if “Titanic” needs anything extra to make it stand out.


“Titanic” gets a lot of heat for its amateur screenplay and less-than-stellar dialogue (written by Cameron), yet even so, “Titanic” is not a victim of its shortcomings; rather, it’s the product of a visionary filmmaker, one who defied the odds and managed to accomplish one of the most spectacular feats in filmmaking. While watching the sinking on the big screen again, all I could think to myself was, “this is why we go to the movies.” James Horner’s classic score combined with the images of the water gushing into the elevators, breaking open the windows, and people being thrown from the sinking ship in its final moments above water are unparalleled. Regardless of what kind of movies you like, it’s simply impossible to watch the final hour of “Titanic” and feel anything but your heart beating rapidly in your chest as goose bumps invade your arms.

Yet these memories seem to evade people. I can only tell people so many times that you truly don’t remember the grandeur and impact of “Titanic.” The emotion. The groundbreaking special effects (which still hold up incredibly well, even by today’s standards). You may think you remember, but I strongly suggest you take one final exhilarating sail aboard the Titanic before it’s too late.

With fairy tales as beloved as Snow White, you need to bring something fresh and new to the table to make an impression. And with another Snow White movie coming out this summer, “Snow White and the Huntsman,” this challenge becomes even fiercer. I just wish “Mirror Mirror” got the memo.

That’s not to say that the effort isn’t visible on screen -- filled with pastel-colored, ethereal imagery, “Mirror Mirror” looks like the perfect counter-film to the serious, dark spin displayed in “Huntsman.” However despite the film’s best efforts, the action, humor, and dialogue feel stilted, never fully bringing the magic, laughs, or intrigue that enchanted everyone so in Disney’s “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.”

Lily Collins is undeniably lovely as Snow White -- though she relies on her pouty-lipped, doe-eyed delicate princess act a bit too much. For a movie that straight-up spells out its goal to us (“I’ve read so many stories where the prince saves the princess, it’s time we change that ending!) she really is lacking the vivacious spirit to match her sentiments.

Surprisingly, the dwarfs were the most entertaining part of the movie. With the original names changed to Wolf, Napoleon, Half Pint, Grub, Grimm, Butcher and Chuckles, they may all be stock characters, but does it really matter? Unlike much else in movie, these munchkins were one of the comedic elements that charmed from beginning to end.

It’s not so much that the script is childish – I’m all for the thieving dwarves and the flirty sword fights -- it’s more that so much of it was laughably bad, minus the laughs. Price Alcott (Armie Hammer) under a puppy love spell where he frantically licks the queen’s (Julia Roberts) face and squeals and pants. The queen getting a facial treatment that involves bird poop and worms. You catch my drift.


Purposefully goofy with a hint of camp, this version of Snow White is dripping with randomness and lost potential. At first it was a bit difficult to single out what exactly was causing the film to have such an underwhelming current running through it. The stunning look and extravagant costumes carry it a long way, perhaps even enough to temporarily mask the real narrative issues at hand. When it comes down to it, “Mirror Mirror” feels like a TV movie; amusing enough, but the kind of movie that still leaves you craving a great deal more.

Rating: C

Who would have thought that “Twilight” fan-fiction could ever amount to anything? “Fifty Shades of Grey,” the new “it” book that’s becoming the talk of the town, has done just that. What makes this feat so noteworthy isn’t the fact that it was originally available online for free when entitled “Master of the Universe;” what makes this a big deal is the fact that it’s an erotica novel – and a particularly kinky one at that.

The story is about recent virginal college grad Anastasia Steele, who begins a BDSM relationship with 27-year old billionaire Christian Grey. (I know, could those be more stereotypical romance novel names?) Erotica has been around forever, but “50 Shades” marks the slow de-stigmatization of the genre – after all, word of mouth is what took it from viral hit to a published New York Times bestseller.

While the book is certainly one heck of a quick read, that doesn’t necessarily mean it was well written. The heroine has a bit of an annoying tendency to constantly bite her lip, think “oh my!” and refer to her “inner goddess” (which is really just the sex addict part of her brain). In fact, she may be the only character more annoying than the (un)popular Bella Swan.

After an intense bidding war between some major Hollywood studios, Universal Pictures and Focus Features bought the film rights to the trilogy for an estimated $5 million. With the momentum this story is currently receiving from the press, it’s definitely in their best interest to get straight to work on the script and try and crank this one out as quickly as possible before the buzz fizzles out.

So now that the film is a sure thing, who should be cast in the lead roles? Ana describes herself as "a pale, brown-haired girl with blue eyes too big for her face." Whoever plays her needs to have a balance between shy and awkward – and sexy and uninhibited. Someone quite a bit like Rooney Mara of “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” fame.

Fans will probably be a bit pickier when it comes to the casting of Christian Grey, who is described as nothing short of gorgeous with his “unruly dark-copper-colored hair” and piecing grey eyes. As the domineering master of sexual prowess, whoever plays him is going to have quite a bit to live up to. Michael Fassbender is who first comes to mind, but he’s too old. However, the strong jawline and perfectly chiseled features of the likes of Henry Cavill (he’s playing Superman in the new reboot) or “Gossip Girl’s” Chace Crawford could very well do the trick.

It’s not entirely surprising that the studios were tripping over each other to get their hands on this one. Whenever a book starts to show a large and distinct fan base, it usually seems like a no-brainer. Though this is far from the typically popular book franchise that sends teens into delirium.

“Fifty Shades” has so much sex and so little story, it’ll be tough to make it into more than a 2-hour sex romp – and even tougher to make it with anything but an NC-17 rating. And regardless of the rating, will women even go to the theaters to see it? It’s one thing to hide behind the anonymity provided by discrete e-readers; it’s quite another to see the titillating story in theaters.

Past box office numbers do little to clear this up. A few “sexy” movies come to mind -- “Shame,” “9 ½ Weeks,” “Unfaithful,” “Secretary” -- none of which really made a killing at the box office, to say the least. Though if “Fifty Shades of Grey” does as well as Universal is expecting, then you can bet it’ll be the beginning of a beautiful friendship between erotica and mainstream film.

Also consider this: Is it possible that men will flock to the theaters, even to something that’s constantly being referred to as “mommy porn” by the media? It definitely has its share of sex to keep them happy – whips and chains included.