parasaurolophus

Ice Princess was typical family fluff that was an enjoyable hour and 1/2 escape from the tensions of real life. With that in mind, it was a great success as entertainment and release from stress.

The plot is simple and "age worn" - a teen named Casey (Michelle Trachtenberg) is torn between fulfilling the dreams of her parent or following her own dreams. Nothing new here. Yet, the supporting characters of Gen Harwood (Hayden Panettiere) and her mother Tina (Kim Cattrall) also have the same situation. Tina, a skating coach, wants her daughter to become a skating champion, an achievement Tina was unable to fulfill in her own skating career. Thus, both Gen and Casey have something in common: pleasing mom or pleasing themselves.

Yet, Gen and Casey were dramatically different. Casey was a brilliant student with her eyes on Harvard while being gifted at skating, too. Meanwhile, Gen excelled only by becoming a slave to skating and sacrificing her schoolwork.

And it is with that difference that I believe Disney missed the potential. The "Casey's" of the world are few and far between, and it is difficult to relate to them: "Oh, gee. Will I go to Harvard because I'm brilliant at school? Or will I become a skating champion because I'm brilliant on the ice?" Because she is so distant from the vast majority of people, she never truly grabbed my empathy.

Gen, on the other hand, is very, very real. She is being pushed into a sport by a parent, and her social life and academics are suffering. She faces a real dilemma. Plus, she has no hope of excelling at either academics or skating. Her social life is her only escape from this vise. And Gen is endearing because she seems to have a "good heart" despite the difficulty. And how often we see kids with "good hearts" trapped by situations.

I believe that most of us can relate much better to Gen than to Casey. I would have preferred the character of Gen to be the focus of the story with Casey's character in the supporting role. It would be tougher, grittier, and more meaningful to the audience.

Yeah, we all cheered for Casey, but I was cheering for Gen even more.

Take 2 pathetic characters, mix with generous proportions of vulgarity and repetitious profanity, and you have this childish attempt at entertainment. This insipid movie is not advised for anyone over 13.

Enough said. However, I will try to recall what I have striven to repress in my memory ...

If you are in the unfortunate position of being cognizant throughout the movie, you can note these factors along the way. Two men embark upon a "road trip" into the wine valleys of California. One, a failed writer, is Miles who is a man without confidence and seemingly without hope. He is also a character with whom the viewer does not wish to identify. Yet, the other "protagonist," Jack, is without brains or character. He has been reduced to a life support system for his genitals, and his sole purpose throughout the movie is to seduce someone other than his fiancé, whom he is destined to marry soon after the trip. Jack is an even more repulsive character than Miles.

For fear of creating a spoiler, I will not divulge if Jack succeeds. (Who cares.) I will also not divulge if Miles overcomes his confidence issues. (Again, who cares.) Yet, the hilarious antics in-between the beginning and end will leave 12-year-olds rolling in the aisles. For adults, the childish gags and predictable "humor" will be boring, the language grating, and the characterizations lacking in appeal.

If there is any redeeming value for this movie, it is regarding pinot noir. Being highlighted frequently through the movie as Miles' favorite, it definitely evokes curiosity about pinot noir and wine tasting in general. This much over-looked wine deserves a boost in appreciation such that it competes with the chardonnays, Rieslings, and other popular white wines. It was known to the Romans, and it's historical value alone should encourage everyone to try it.

And prior to watching this flotsam of the movie industry, I encourage anyone (over 21 and at home) to imbibe heavily in pinot noir as it may improve the movie (or destroy any memory of it). Further, it may induce drowsiness and sleep soon after the opening. This will mercifully allow one to doze through the remainder of the ordeal.

I gave this movie a "1 for awful" because "0 for abysmal" was not available.

Quantum physics and neurobiology join forces with Ramtha in the movie, What the #$*! Do We Know!?, to give a "mind-bending" and "life altering" experience. Quantum physics, grounded in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, opens the door to endless possibilities for human growth. The entity Ramtha, as channeled by JZ Knight, puts this new knowledge into the light of New Age metaphysical growth. Meanwhile, knowledge of the workings of the brain and emotions are used to tie quantum physics and metaphysics together using mind-boggling graphics and humorous cartoon images. (The take-off on Robert Palmer's "Addicted to Love" was a riot.) All of this is pasted over a story of a photographer struggling with life's common problems and anxieties. The photographer plot, though thin, provides a useful platform for all of the other ideas, in that it provides some reference point to apply the carnival of new ideas presented in this very, very thought provoking movie. As we used to say in the sixties, "Far out!"