"Red Riding Hood" - in theaters

Catherine Hardwicke tried so hard to make another "Twilight" with this picture. I think she also tried too hard to be like Tim Burton. The result was a superficial copy of greater films. But don't get me wrong - it was entertaining.

The twist on this Red Riding Hood tale is that the Big, Bad Wolf is actually a werewolf. And it likes to terrorize a small town that no one knows the name of back in a year that they never actually mention.

Now, Amanda Seyfried plays Valerie, the daughter of a woodcutter (Billy Burke, aka Charlie Swan [Team Charlie, baby!]) and his wife (Virginia Madsen), who is promised to Henry (Max Irons), son of the wealthiest family in the village. But alack the day! Valeria is in love with Peter (Shiloh Fernandez), a woodcutter like her father and hence, isn't too keen about marrying Henry. Then there's Grandma (Julie Christie), who lives in a house in the woods outside the village limits, and if truth be told, is a tad frightening. You never can quite figure out what her deal is.

When the wolf kills a human for the first time in 20 years, the village flips out and calls in Father Solomon (Gary Oldman), who is a renowned evil hunter. He's actually quite the lunatic, not to mention religious zealot, who will hurt anyone and anything to kill evil. Which really doesn't make sense. He also has these silver fingernails, which are so disgusting that it made me gag slightly. Father Solomon makes matters worse, by announcing that the wolf is someone in the village, and the witch-hunt begins.

I must admit that the filmmakers do a good job of keeping you guessing who is the wolf. The only thing for certain is that it is NOT Valerie, mostly because she comes face to face with it.

As one can imagine, the acting is pretty terrible. But at least the actors are nice to look at. Max Irons is so cute you just want to pinch his cheeks, while Shiloh Fernandez is very intense, and looks so much like Joaquin Phoenix it's disturbing. And Amanda Seyfried talks breathlessly through the movie, batting her giant blue eyes at everyone.

So on the CWeave scale, I rate this movie a 6.5. It's funny, but as I read back through this, it seems like I hated the movie, when in fact, the opposite is true. I quite enjoyed it. And in fact, I'll probably own it when it comes out on DVD. No one's mad about it.

"Letters to Juliet" - in theaters

When I went to see this movie I was in dire need of a chick flick and this totally fit the bill.

Before we begin though, I would like to state for the record that the premise of this movie is somewhat ridiculous. The story goes that desperate women in need of romantic advice pen notes to Juliet (of Romeo and Juliet fame) asking for her help. This is ludicrous simply because Juliet is probably the last person that I would turn to for romantic advice. Sure, she found her true love and got married, but less than a week later, she kills herself. How is that a healthy display of what love should be, huh? I don't get it...

However, I did enjoy this movie, that obvious annoyance aside. The film revolves around Sophie (played by Amanda Seyfried), a fact-checker who wishes she were a writer for the New Yorker, who travels to Verona with her chef/restaurant-opening fiancee Victor (played by Gael Garcia Bernal) on a pre-honeymoon. But alas, Victor is too preoccupied with the copious amounts of fantastic food and wine to pay too much attention to Sophie, who wanders aimlessly around the city. By a lucky happenstance, she volunteers with the Secretaries of Juliet, who answer all of the letters that the unfortunate romantics leave at Juliet's family home. It's there that Sophie finds a 50 year old letter, written by Clare, whom she decides to write back.

Due to the nature of the letter, Clare (Vanessa Redgrave) comes over to Italy with her grandson Charlie (Christopher Egan) in order to find her lost love, and Sophie ends up tagging along on the journey. And who would have thunk it, but sparks fly between Charlie and Sophie, who grapples with a guilty conscience about Victor but can't ignore the pull of her heartstrings.

Sounds disgusting, right? But disgusting in an awesome way.

Vanessa Redgrave made this movie. She was incredibly charming and vulnerable, and Italian men simply flocked to her in a manner that was a little insane. Christopher Egan was uptight in the beginning, as he was supposed to be, but by the end, he was a British teddy bear. I didn't care for Victor, who was a total douche, but was supposed to be, so well played by Gael Garcia. And I've been a fan of Amanda Seyfried since "Veronica Mars", so it there's really no argument that I enjoyed her performance here.

So on the CWeave scale of 1 to 10, I would give this movie a 7.5. I got the warm and fuzzies while watching, but there could have been a little more heat between Charlie and Sophie. Needless to say, I'll probably own this one when it comes out on DVD.

"Dear John" - in theaters

I know that when I sit down to watch a Nicholas Sparks' film, I can count on a few things:

1. I'm probably going to be a weepy mess at some stage of the film.
2. At least one principal character that I have become emotionally attached to will contract a debilitating disease and die.
3. The romance will be cheesy and utterly delicious.

All in all, "Dear John" did not disappoint when it came to these things. However, as my friend who accompanied me to the theater pointed out, the preview for the film did not really resemble what the film was actually about. It only advertised the first 40 minutes, and then the rest was a total surprise. I mean, seriously, you don't really see it coming. I won't spoil it for you here though, because that's not my style.

The person to whom I became attached was Richard Jenkin's character. He played Mr. Tyree, or Stockard "Channin Tatum" O'Neal's on-screen dad. What made him so poignant for me was his very isolated way of life. It made my insides ache, and his scenes were when most of my tears were shed.

The two principles in the film (Amanda Seyfried and Channing Tatum) were well cast, and they did a decent job at convincing the audience that they fell in love after only two weeks. That's what I love about Nicholas Sparks' storytelling. He has characters fall madly in love after a brief time together, and then has them stay in love until it eventually kills one or both of them. Oy vey.

The part when the two principles are not together (you know, the part that no one saw coming), is a little unbelievable, and I lost a little respect for Mr. Sparks for taking it in that direction. There could have been other ways for him to separate the two lovers that would have been more convincing.

But hey! It was an alright movie. And for all the girls out there, Channing Tatum is often without his shirt, which is always a good time.

So on the CWeave scale of 1 to 10, I give "Dear John" a 6. It was entertaining, sad, and just a little too ridiculous to get a higher rating from me.