Saw a trailer for this over the weekend. As a John Irving fan, I'm automatically attracted (movie based on A Widow for One Year). However, I'm wondering if this is another case of Owen Meany/Simon Birch in which it's so changed (read: damaged) that they end up giving it a new name. It's been a while since I read Widow, but there is some vaguely familiar material, but it sure doesn't seem like what I remeber most of the book being about. Looks like they've only made part of the book into the movie.

Saw it today, and I approve. It only covers the first 1/3 of Widow, but it does contain a fairly complete story. Jeff Bridges is wonderful. Nothing that you really notice in particular, but when it's done, you know he's done another fine job. He comes across as both loathsome and lovable. Kim Basinger is ok, but then all she has to do is look sad throughout the movie. (But as my wife pointed out, she does it well.)

I wonder if the film will goad people into reading the novel. If so, I think they'll be in for a surprise, since the rest of the book centers on Ruth, who is only a minor character (but a constant presence) in the film. She may have been that in the section of the book covered by the film, too, but it's been to long since I've read it.

I did it again; I liked a movie Movieguide calls abhorrent. I'm such a pervert.

You've done it. Posted another Movieguide link. And after months of ignoring the links and that site, I clicked on this one and was reminded of how irritating these reviews are.

Not, mind you, because of the "abhorrent" tag, which I can at least understand, if not agree with, but because of the little things. Like this sentence:

"Jeff Bridges is excellent in his role, and after the lukewarm reception given his last year’s SEABISCUIT, one can only wish he will find a real winner next time."

Let's look past the admission of excellent acting, which never amounts to much for the "Movieguide" reviewers (although I don't think "Movieguide" readers mind), and focus on the one piece in this sentence that can be fact-checked: that "Seabiscuit" was given a "lukewarm reception" last year.

By what standard? The only one that "Movieguide" ever acknowledges is box-office receipts, but "Seabiscuit" brought in $120 million in the United States. That's "lukewarm"? And the movie was nominated for seven Oscars, including Best Picture, so the "Movieguide" crew must not have been referring to industry awards (which, other than the "Teddies," they don't care about.)

One reminder: Every time you link to MovieGuide, you up its placement in Internet search engines.

Just a thought.

Frederica Matthewes-Green takes a sledgehammer to "The Door in the Floor."

Seabisquick was given lukewarm critical approval (despite the oscar - or the oscar in spite of the critics, I suppose). Overall, it was a bit of a surprise as a best picture candidate. Not so much a dark horse, but more a swayback one that needs to be put out of our misery.

Saw it. Thought it was okay, but nothing special. Jeff Bridges IS very good. Is there a factory somewhere that churns out cute blond girls with the surname Fanning? My biggest complaint would be that, when we finally find out what happened in the accident, there is next to no payoff there -- nothing that would seem to justify (in a narrative sense) all the pervy sexual stuff between the mother and her dead son's lookalike.

Surfing through Amazon, I discovered that A Sound Like Someone Trying Not to Make a Sound is coming out next month. It looks like a children's book.

Finally saw it and appreciated the film, but didn't overly like it. Appreciated it for not being standard fair, but it just felt like it could've been a little more. Bridges .... what can you say. Great as always.

7/10