So, you’ve all picked up your fancy copies of the final Harry Potter movie by now, right? I won’t be spoiling anything by getting into the nitty and the gritty of it, because you saw it at least twice in the theater (once with kids/friends and once with a bewildered significant other) and once or more on your lovely home theater system. Unfortunately for me, the movie shows nearly black on my mediocre screen, and I was too lazy to adjust, so it wasn’t the visual spectacle at home that it was at the movies. Still, the story is why we’re all here, right?

The Story

Let’s be honest. There were criticisms about the meandering length of book 7. I hear that, but for those of us who were really invested, we didn’t mind wading through some dead ends and emotional flip-flops along with our beloved characters. We knew it meant we could spend a little more time with them before saying goodbye. But that would have been disaster in a film. They had to cut, cut, cut and focus the story into two satisfying arcs, and what they chose to do was to make the first arc character-driven, and the second, epic (world-driven). This was a smart choice, in my view.

To back up to part one briefly, to explore the character arcs: I enjoyed the friction and frustration between Harry, Ron and Hermione, and the gelling of their relationships, especially Harry/Hermione as friends and Ron/Hermione as a couple. I loved the moment, after Ron has stormed away and Harry and Hermione are finally forced to leave camp without him, that they apparate to a new area and Hermione begins to cry, while Harry must carry on and cast the protective spells that Hermione usually does.

I wrote in just one extra line in the first movie, as I’m prone to do, and it was this: when Hermione is sad about Ron, Harry takes her hand and dances with her. They laugh a bit and the mood lightens, but then it settles again into sadness. No dialogue is there, and so you could get the impression that Harry is sad romantically for Hermione, that he was making a play for her and it was rebuffed. Well, maybe they wanted that ambiguity, but I think it cheapens the beautiful friendship between them. I would have added a clarifying line from Harry. Simple, clear, eloquent: “I miss him, too.”

As for other emotional arcs, I thought it was important that they kept a bit about Harry’s struggle to keep faith in Dumbledore even as information about him changed. This was one of the strongest themes in book 7. Faith is what you do when doubts come into question. It’s easy to have faith when things are going well, so the fact that Harry decides to have faith in Dumbledore when things get hard… that is what counts. That is what transforms him from a boy to a man.

Oh, and I have to applaud whoever invented the wonderful interlude animation of the Deathly Hallows tale. LOVED IT.

On to part deux. In my opinion, Harry has matured. He’s grown up. He acts as an adult. In part one, he makes that transformation, so when part two opens and we see him interview the goblin and hold his own, then be unafraid to gently accuse Olivander for his weakness, we know we are dealing with a strong hero in this movie. Not the scared boy from book one, not the lucky bumbler from book two. Harry is a man.

So I knew this story would be the best one yet. I like men.

Since this movie was epic (not just action), I was glad they made a point to check in on all of our favorite characters for a bit of closure, and even threw in tons of details and nods from the other books (portraits on the walls, pixies in the room of requirement) for a full-circle feel. Even doing so, it was so lightly sprinkled, the details didn’t slow down the action at all, and I felt increasingly invested in every minute of this film. My kids, too, who were a bit young the the books first came out (read: unborn) found a fresh interest in the series as a result of this movie.

Changes (from the book) that worked well:

• Harry (and Voldemort) can feel the horcruxes. There is a little snakey sound as Harry approaches, even. They are both affected when one is destroyed. This worked well for the film.
• The gold in Bellatrix’s vault did not blister our heroes. Thank goodness… would have been gross. Also they don’t Crucio Harry’s body at the end, which was also a good idea.
• Snape assembles the students into the great hall and Harry appears — this worked great! I loved the dialogue about “somebody grab him!” and then the friends step in. But I most loved the McGonagall / Snape duel. I actually loved every millisecond of McGonagall in this movie. I love her character anyway and Maggie Smith plays her exactly as I imagine.
• Voldemort’s voice: in the book it is loud and booming, but in the movie it is an intimate whisper, which I think is really terrifying. I love the look of disgust on Harry’s face when they first experience the voice.
• They show the Elder wand begin to crack under Voldemort’s hand. This was interesting, and justified his heightened fury. Like.
• And can I just say that I loved the degeneration of Voldemort. His physical movements, wow! By the end, he’s hobbling around like the Hunchback of Notre Dame.
• A few things are simplified with regards to the snake, all of which I thought were useful changes. Fortunately, they still had Neville kill the snake (though he didn’t know it was a horcrux) which I felt was important, since Neville was the Harry-alternate, had Voldemort decided to “mark” him instead.
• The epilogue was fantastic, and somehow it made the idea more clear even than in the book that Harry achieved immortality, not by horcruxes or even hallows, but through progeny. That was beautiful.

Things that could have been better:

• Ron and Hermione’s kiss. Need I say more? I know, it’s true to the book, but ewwww.
• The pensieve trip into Snape’s memories: this was flowing and beautiful but totally incomprehensible if you’re not a many-time-reader of the books.
• When Harry realizes he has to die, the book speaks beautifully of his awareness of his own healthy heart. In the movie, all he does is clutch his chest, which is a little lackluster. I actually think a little CG could have been artfully done to illustrate his feelings better. Just a little.
• Harry, after his death, asks Dumbledore, “What should I do?” and calls after him as he disappears. Naw. I didn’t buy that. Harry knows what to do. He’s a man now, remember? He doesn’t ask that boyish question. Least favorite line in the movie.
• Voldemort hugs Draco. Whaaaa? Nuff sed.
• The wrap-up: Harry doesn’t get applauded by the portraits!! This is my favorite scene in the book, and I missed seeing it come to life. Harry also doesn’t repair his own wand, which I thought had such wonderful symbolism. In the end scene (before the epilogue), they look off into the distance, which was a little cliche.

Music:

WOW! Even as the DVD menu started, with that tinny music-box reprise of the theme, I knew this score was special. It was lovely throughout. I’m going to own this one. The full-blown original theme plays when Harry first steps back into Hogwarts’ room of requirement, which was fitting. The score is awesome when the stone soldiers awaken, when the attack begins (percussion sounds), and in the pensieve — so sad there.

Cinematography:

Some beautiful work here as well. Our view shifts from under to outside the invisibility cloak in the Gringotts Bank scene — awesome. The dragon was realistic enough not to detract. The shield around Hogwarts and all the attack graphics were very cool. The Death Eater flying-in-smoke thing was again well done. I liked the fiend fire, how it turned into V’s face at the last second. Sweet. But the best part was the pure white of Harry’s death. After such a dark movie, this contrast is brilliant. Literally.

A few great lines:

Harry, to parents and “uncles” Sirius and Remus: “Why are you here?” Answer: “We never left.”

Dumbledore, in the white King’s Cross: “You wonderful boy. You brave, brave man.”

Also from Dumbledore: “Words are our most invaluable source of magic.”

Let’s also note that JK Rowling had producer credit on both parts of HP7, so extra credit to her for an awesome wrap-up of an unequaled series. This one, of course, gets five nods from me. * * * * *

 Enjoy!

Knight refers to Roy, played by Tom Cruise, while I assume day is meant to be June, played by Cameron Diaz. So the names are sadly contrived, but that’s okay. The story starts with June at the airport, running into a stranger — twice — and then ending up on a near-empty flight with him. She’s merely thinking romantic connection, but is in for much more as Roy has to kill or knock out everyone on the plane (all of whom are after him for an unknown reason) and emergency-land the plane in an open field. Now she’s stuck with Roy… even though she makes several attempts to get back to her regular life.

Over the course of the movie, she toughens up, so yay there. And, you start to understand Roy and why he’s acting so crazy.

I think I liked it because despite some average writing and predictable storytelling, it had some really funny, spoof-ish action, and really talented actors in Cruise and Diaz. They both totally got their parts spot on.

You know what the tone of Knight and Day reminded me of?

That’s right: Get Smart (Steve Carell and Anne Hathaway). Knight and Day wasn’t as funny as Get Smart. In fact, if you haven’t seen Get Smart, shame on you. Go add it to your queue. I’ll wait. My kids still like to randomly call out “it burns, oh it burns!” but thankfully they’ve all forgotten about “squeezing the lemon”.

So Knight and Day had those kinds of action antics we all love. This was rated PG-13 but other than the strangeness of hearing the cherubic-looking Diaz utter the “S” word several times, my kids didn’t have issues with the movie. Sorry, but her 12-year-old facial features just look silly when swearing. I’d buy it from Anne, though.

Enjoy!

Oddly, this is my second post with this title, but this time it refers to the movie Stranger Than Fiction. But maybe it’s not odd, since there are no less than six different films — unrelated — of this same title. But I’m talking about the Will Ferrell one from 2006. The other night, while staying up to catch the lunar eclipse, I popped this movie in. Anyone who writes fiction will love this movie for obvious reasons, but so will everyone who enjoys consuming stories… as well as people who identify with slight obsessive-compulsive tendencies. And IRS agents. And people being audited. Basically, this movie is for everyone.

There are early clues that this story is going to be told in an unconventional way, as writing appears right on the screen during the opening sequence to give the audience a visual display of IRS agent Harold Crick’s (Ferrell) affinity for numbers and counting. Soon, we are introduced to the idea that the soothing female voice doing voice-overs (Emma Thompson) is actually audible to Harold. I mean, he notices her talking about him, narrating his life. The stakes are set when we hear our trusty narrator forecasting an early death for poor Mr. Crick.

From here it gets a little confusing as the story starts some seemingly  unrelated threads of other characters. Don’t worry, you’ll get it on the second viewing.  This is one of those lovely movies that brings it all together at the end and ties a neat bow. This is a feel-good movie that has some intelligent fun with fiction, IRS agents, literary professors and bakers, with a twist of romance mixed in.

You’ll enjoy it. Here’s a cute clip. Notice how Harold sits in the accordion part of the double bus. The whole movie is smart yet subtle like that.

Four nods to this one!

It’s PG-13, but personally I don’t know what age I’d recommend on this one. I watched with my preteens, and since I’m a nazi about people not sleeping together on the first date, I didn’t even have to say anything. They know where I stand. Other than that, I don’t recall language or violence issues — unless you count the multiple ways the narrator imagines of killing herself… but I found those comical. Sick me.

Enjoy!

First, The Karate Kid. I enjoyed the first forty minutes of this movie, but it’s pace was so slow — not slow, exactly, but definitely geared for older teen/ adult audiences so that my boys (under 10yo) were not wholely engaged. Henceforth, they asked me if we could skip over to Toy Story 3 instead — which we did, leaving my husband and daughter to finish out Karate Kid. All reports are that it was good, but didn’t tread too much new ground once you get over the obvious improvement that it was set in China and led by very good actor Jaden Smith. I think I would have enjoyed it, but I don’t for one second regret heading over to Toy Story 3…. though I was reluctant at the time.

See, I am a huge fan of Toy Story. I think it is a master class of storytelling. It constantly dug for the truths about each of those toys, and didn’t treat them as mere children’s playthings (in spite of Woody’s assertion… or perhaps he was paying a high complement). Fun fact: did you know that Joss Wheden was a credited screenwriter on the first Toy Story movie? I enjoyed Toy Story 2, too. Maybe slightly less. But I didn’t know where they could go from there. I feared Toy Story 3 would be a rehash of the plot of either 1 or 2. I didn’t think they’d let Andy GROW UP, for crying out loud.

When the boys and I sat down in the nearly full theater, and the first scene ended with Andy heading off to college, I felt sad — even hopeless! — for both the toys’ prospects and for mine as a moviewatcher. Alas, I couldn’t have been more wrong. But lets get back to that later, since I like to end on a high note.

A week later, I saw Despicable Me with my sister’s family. They had watched it the previous night and wanted to go again. That’s how much they liked it. Well, sorry sista, but I don’t think I cracked a smile once. I didn’t get it at all. In thinking about it, I’ve decided that I couldn’t like a movie about a villian who has paper-thin motivations for being bad. He actually likes tormenting a child by making a balloon animal, giving it to the child, and then piercing said animal with a pin? Really? I couldn’t get on that train. Most villains have a reason for acting evil. They actually think they are heroic. It just strains credulity for someone to enjoy meanness… and if he truly enjoys meanness, I don’t want to watch a movie about him. Plus, I kept wishing I was over watching The Last Airbender, which I had originally thought was not playing at my theater.

Speaking of which, the NEXT night I was fishing for doubt trout… no, that’s another story. I took my daughter to see The Last Airbender, the movie I had been on tenterhooks waiting for. I heard it wasn’t very good, but I had to check it out, because we’re huge fans of the Nickelodeon animated series. What can I say about it? I’m at a loss. I want you all to go see it so that they make the next two movies (and, dare I hope, tread some new ground in a fourth??) but I can’t pretend I wasn’t disappointed.

First, I didn’t realize until halfway through that they were only attempting to portray the first season of Airbender, so that was a letdown. It makes no sense to make a movie out of one season, really. Television seasons are set to end on cliffhangers, so that you’ll tune in after the long summer hiatus to see what happens. A movie, even a trilogy, needs more tie-up than that. The second movie of a trilogy can get away with more unfinished plot lines, but the first? Think Pirates of the Carribean, or Star Wars: A New Hope or The Bourne Identity. The first in a trilogy must be a good standalone.

Second, they removed absolutely all of the humor. Whaa? That’s like taking Harry Potter and removing the magic. Airbender is awesomely funny. The kids are kids, not little adults. They like the funny. They are the funny. It is integral to their goodness.

So, you take out a satisfying ending, tread ground the series did with more depth, and do it with nary a smile. What then are we left with? Live actors who try in vain to simulate animated expressions and postures, and computer graphic effects that are dwarfed by bigger-budget movies. I’m getting despressed. Airbender deserved better. If you haven’t, NO MATTER what your age, go put the entire TV series of Airbender in your Netflix queue. Airbender has the best mythology of any epic show since Star Wars.

Don’t believe me? Check out this fan-made movie trailer:

But back to Toy Story 3. If you pick one summer family movie to see, this is it. I’m telling you. Grab a nephew if you’re embarrassed to see it without a kid… or better yet, grab me. I’m looking for any excuse to see it again. No matter your age, you’ll laugh, you’ll even cry, you’ll be wowed and you’ll care about the outcome. And, you haven’t lived until you see what Mr. Potato Head turns into in this movie. Barbie and Ken, oh my! And Buzz, oh, Buzz. Go. See it. And comment when you get back, dahling, I’ve enjoyed our chat.

I also liked the way the book was told in alternate first-person, sort of as a series of journal entries… but more like word snapshots. My son’s first-grade teacher would call them “small moment” scenes. Short but detailed. It was a great way to keep us invested in what would otherwise be a rather confusing, tangled story.

If you are the sort of person that just can’t get past the paradoxes that the whole premise of time travel deals with, then this story isn’t for you. If you can, you’ll enjoy either the book or the 2009 movie, or both.

Hey, that’s funny. I just realized that the movie’s main actor, Eric Bana, his last movie was about time travel, too — the new Star Trek.

I’ve had a hard time liking Bana since he played in the 2003 screen version of The Hulk, a movie I absolutely hated. I wanted to like it, because I liked the TV show and think the Bruce/Hulk is one of the most interesting super heroes. He’s not simply Jekyll and Hyde — good and bad. I like to think of Hulk as misunderstood. And that there are times for the use of anger and physical power, like to protect the weak and innocent, not to be a victim of a vilified military. The 2008 version looked exactly the same — Hulk vs. the military and I think that’s really boring.

(I also wanted to like the 2003 Hulk movie because of my long-time love of the movie Labyrinth in which Jennifer Connelly also starred. But I digress.)

But, in The Time Traveler’s Wife, Bana is really good, as of course is Rachel McAdams, who I liked in this performance better than in The Notebook.

Back to time travel.

It is nearly impossible to create a good story that centers around time travel, because first you have to deal with what happens when you change something in the past or future. This movie didn’t attempt to grapple with it, which makes it a little unusual. It laid out, very early and very clearly, that Henry, the time traveler, didn’t have the power to change anything significant in the past or future. Of course, the things he does throughout the movie change things as far as his relationship to his wife, but still… I could accept these boundaries and enjoy the movie within them.

This made the movie really a story about a man’s relationship with his wife.

Their relationship reminded me a bit of Lois and Clark (Superman), where she is the stability that anchors him, domesticates and humanizes him. Poor Henry, though, instead of having super-powers, has a super curse, in that he cannot control when or where he travels in time. There are some redeeming factors, though, and I enjoyed how these things made room in the story for other elements. After all, a guy that time travels at random can hardly hold down a job, so it’s very helpful that he can win the lottery so as not to be worried about money on top of his other issues.

I found it particularly interesting that the story took on infertility as a main issue. It made the otherwise rather perfect Clare more real, that she had serious issues of her own to grapple with.

So, Henry and Clare ended up being, for me, one of the more relatable couples I’ve seen onscreen. They are experiencing a great love, but not an ideal life, and I get that. Awesome love doesn’t equal perfect life. Not until we’re all behind the pearly gates, I guess.

The screenplay writer is Bruce Joel Rubin, who also wrote Ghost and several others. I liked this screenplay well enough that I’m tempted to check out his lesser-known films like My Life and even Stewart Little 2! Well, we’ll see, since he also wrote the Last Mimzy which I found rather silly.

On a more visual design note, the movie had a lovely look. You get a feel for it in the movie poster, isn’t that image beautalicious?

This movie gets four and a half nods from me!

enjoy!

(Though, like Spanglish, it is not an all-ages movie — it’s also PG-13.)

The Family Man is about a wall street executive who gets a chance to see the life’s road he didn’t take — the one of marriage and family vs. high-powered career. A “what might have been” story.

Now, the last movie Nicolas Cage was in that I really liked was Raising Arizona, so I remember that I didn’t have high hopes when I first saw this. But his pairing with Tea Leoni (also from Spanglish) was so charming I was taken in.

For instance, when he wakes on the second morning of his “glimpse” he hears the baby cry and goes to the bathroom door where his wife is showering to tell her about it. She can’t hear him because she’s singing in the shower (Rolling Stones, no less) so he must open the door to get her attention. The look on his face when he must deal with her nudity (not shown on camera, but firmly implied through the obscure glass) as a non-sexual event is PRICELESS, as is her annoyed “what’s the problem” attitude of a woman who has been married for thirteen years and is interrupted in the midst of an otherwise perfect shower experience.

Okay, found the vid — right at the beginning of this clip on YouTube. I warned you of the semi-nudity right? But finish my review first because once you start the clip, you won’t want to stop as he tries to change the baby’s diaper and deal with the daughter’s awareness that he is not actually her dad.

There are some great lines in this movie, like when Cage tries to have it all by moving his family into the city so he can work for his pre-glimpse firm, and he tells the upset Leoni that he wants to give her a life that people will envy.

“They already do envy us,” she says. And she’s so right — yes, some people envy those with worldly success. But another class of people value personal, family success even more. It’s the kind of movie that makes you question which class of person you are.

And of course, the movie’s mantra: “I choose us.” It’s Jerry Maguire-worthy!

This one gets four out of five nods.

Hopefully, people didn’t go into this movie looking for a love story like Dates (or a crude farce like Waterboy) because this movie actually had something to say — something Hollywood almost never says.

So what did this movie (which was, incidentally, funny and charming as well) say?

It showed parents sacrificing their own happiness for their kids’ well-being. It showed them choosing family obligation over momentary pleasure. It showed them, in short, being responsible grown ups.

Shocking, I know!

Well, not Tea Leoni’s character, but she was the catalyst for the story, and she played her part so that you both laughed at her and felt sorry for her. It was a razor-fine line. She must be a pretty great actress.

But Adam Sandler and Paz Vega played their concerned parent roles well, and it became obvious that Sandler believes in this story. He didn’t set himself up as a perfect man, but as a real one, trying desperately to hold his family together.

The show-stealers were the two daughters, though. Shelbie Bruce as Vega’s Mexican-born, Americanized daughter and Sarah Steele as Sandler’s kind, grounded, charming daughter. It was those two parent-daughter relationships that made the film, and these two actresses did wonderful jobs.

Two things were wrong with this film:

1. The Title — come on, who thought this was a good idea? Yes, a language barrier is a part of the movie, and you could even argue that the two people communicating the worst were Sandler and his wife! But the word Spanglish is just plain ugly. Words have shape and sound, and much like Susan Sarandon’s movie Stepmom, this title kept me away from the film. It doesn’t say heartwarming movie to me.

2. The Teasers — this movie is grossly mis-billed as a “zany” comedy, which, aside from Leoni’s incredibly strange sex scene, is way off. Here’s what Netflix’s blurb says about Spanglish:

Cultures clash with a mighty clang in this comedy of manners and mayhem directed by James Brooks. When a beautiful Mexican housekeeper, Flor (Paz Vega), is hired by a rich Los Angeles family, everyone’s life is upended in hilariously zany ways, especially when the parents (Tea Leoni and Adam Sandler) make it their mission to be so welcoming that they become overwhelming — especially the dad, who’s quickly smitten by Flor’s beauty.

This makes it sound like Sandler plays a guy who would start an affair with his housekeeper right under his wife’s nose, which is really the opposite of the events of the movie. And using words like “hilarious” and “mayhem” makes it sound like fluff when it is substance (with flair). And it led me to worry all through the final moments of the film that the whole movie setup was just to get the two leads into bed. Thankfully, it wasn’t, and if you haven’t seen this movie, be forewarned. It is a movie about parents and children more than about men and sex. Hurrah for that!

Think I’ll start rating the things I review… how about nods? I give this four out of five nods. If you’ve been avoiding Spanglish for fear it is like Big Daddy, don’t worry. It has its priorities straight. See it.

= 4 nods

The kids and I drove for an hour to see the new Miyazaki film, Ponyo. (It didn’t come to my local theater in backwoods, usa.) We are huge fans of Miyazaki films, each with our own fav:

4yo loves Totoro for its lovable furry title characters, the soot spirits and the Nekobasu (the cat-bus.)

7yo loves Princess Mononoke, arguably the most gruesome of Miyazaki’s films, but perhaps the most realistic.

9yo loves Spirited Away, loves No Face and even Yubaba, but especially spider-legged Kumaji and her other allies.

My husband likes Nausicaa best. Not sure why — the insect thing?

And, of course, I love Howl’s Moving Castle. I love Diana Wynne Jones’ book (and its sequels) so that’s part of it, but Miyazaki put his own stamp on an already lovely story. It’s a love story with spark (did they use that as the tag line? They should have!!). Oh, don’t you love Calcifer? In fact, I would say the Door-Mat in MindsBase was somewhat inspired by Calcifer.

Now, I feel rather amiss not even mentioning Castle in the Sky, or even The Cat Returns or Kiki’s Delivery Service, all of which we also own and love.

So, back to Ponyo. I knew, going in, that this would be a younger story, more on the order of Totoro than Mononoke. But I really got my hopes up when the hip 20-something boy at the ticket counter offered “It’s really great!” when I bought the tix.

Here’s what was great about it:

• Watercolor artistry, oy yes.
• Spectacular visuals, especially the oceanic events. Depicting the waves as giant fish — brilliant!
• The magically-enlarged toy boat powered by a candle-fired boiler. My kids want to try to build one of those now.
• The old ladies. One thing I love about Miyazaki films (and Japanese culture in general) is the integration of older people as valued members of society.
• The smaller story of Ponyo and Sosuke is backdropped by the larger world of the mother, the father and the town dealing with the storms — LOVE IT!
• The wonderful details such as the ham radio, the generator and the Morse Code spotlight. My kids eat up this kind of stuff.
• The Sea King Fujimoto. Does he remind you a little of Howl? Great voice choice in Liam Neeson.

Here’s where it fell down for me. I never felt enough attachment to Ponyo or Sosuke. I never felt that Sosuke loved Ponyo the way a boy eventually needs to love a girl. He seemed to love her as a pet, but she didn’t end up as a pet, she ended up as a human girl. I needed to see them have some version of love as boy and girl — a girl who acted a little more like a girl than an alien experiencing the earth for the first time.

I felt like that was the promise, and not just because it’s the route Disney took on the Hans Christian Anderson classic. The opening scenes with Sosuke (at least the English version) spoke much of love — the love Sosuke immediately had for Ponyo and the love (shown by hurt when he didn’t return) Sosuke’s mother had for his father (and vice versa).

As the movie progressed and became more about Ponyo’s transformation (literally and emotionally) what I saw was Ponyo experiencing LIFE. I didn’t see her experiencing LOVE. So, in the end, I was left a little empty with where Ponyo’s story would go from there. Would Sosuke grow tired of Ponyo over the years, or see her as a sister (since all signs pointed to her being raised in his household). Would Ponyo really like being a human better if she wasn’t loved by Sosuke? Would she miss her many sisters and long to return to the sea?

Fortunately, my kids weren’t troubled by these same lingering questions. But they also haven’t begged for us to buy it when it comes out on DVD, which is often the first question after a great in-theater experience.

SO… compared to other Miyazaki films, it was okay. Compared to films like Open Season, it was “really great” — just as the ticket-boy promised.

= 3 nods

Now, go put all the Miyazaki films in your netflix queue!! Most are FIVE NODS!

(P.S. Is queue not the weirdest-spelled word?)