Search the Community

Wah wah wah wah, wah wah, wah wah wah wah. Sorry... couldn't resist. I've been a Peanuts fan as far back as I can remember. I read Peanuts books and drew Peanuts cartoons as soon as I was old enough to read a book or hold a crayon. I've still got a picture I drew as a little kid of Snoopy's dog house (a cutaway view showing the inside and all of the stuff that he had in there), and there's a photo somewhere of me standing in front of a chalkboard we had at home drawing Snoopy on it. I had stacks of Peanuts books that I read and re-read endlessly. I have every volume to date of The Complete Peanuts from Fantagraphics, and am now in need of a longer book shelf to fit the last few remaining volumes. Charles M. Schulz was and is the single biggest artistic influence in my life, and out of Peanuts grew my love for cartooning. Oddly enough, Charles M. Jones (the Warner Bros. director) is the second biggest influence on me. Not sure what the deal is with artists named "Charles M." something-or-other, but there you go. That said, I'm not a collector of Peanuts memorabilia. I never kept my original, old Peanuts books in pristine shape. I read them until they were dog-eared and ragged. I own almost no other Peanuts merchandise. I don't necessarily think that everything with "Peanuts" on it is a good thing. Chocolate bars, for example. Why ruin a perfectly good chocolate bar by putting peanuts in it? It's like, you're eating this really tasty, smooth chocolate bar, and then it's like biting into a chunk of particle board. I mean, by themselves I like peanuts, or as peanut butter in a Reese's peanut butter cup, but that doesn't mean I want big, nasty hunks of them in my chocolate. Same thing with Rocky Road ice cream. Why on earth would anyone... Oh. Sorry. Right. So... not everything with "Peanuts" stamped on it is good. Particularly when it comes to animation. On one hand, A Charlie Brown Christmas and It's The Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown nailed it. They're funny, iconic, and perfectly translate the humor and characters of Peanuts over into the world of animation. But there are others. Many others. Forty-five others. And many of them were stinkers. They never quite recaptured the spirit of the original holiday specials with It's Arbor Day, Charlie Brown. They really jumped the shark though with It's Flashbeagle, Charlie Brown, when they animated Snoopy's dancing by rotoscoping a female dancer. Even though I didn't know much about animation at the time, I knew it was creepy and weird. The four original feature films didn't fare much better. While the first two were pretty good, generally they were just television specials that ran too long. Still, between the original Christmas and Great Pumpkin specials, and a really good Saturday morning TV series which basically lifted episodes right out of the comic strip, it's easier to think of Peanuts animation in a positive light, and overlook the negative. That is until a few years ago when I read the announcement... that they were going to make a new Peanuts movie, using CG. Say what? I remember getting really upset. Every, and I mean every attempt to CG-ify a traditional cartoon or comic strip character had failed horribly. Scooby Doo, Rocky & Bullwinkle, Alvin & The Chipmunks (admittedly, no great loss there), Casper, Garfield, Dino, The Great Gazoo, The Smurfs, Underdog, Sherman and Peabody... and many of them shoehorned into impossibly awful live-action train wrecks of a movie. Seriously... have you ever watched the Flintstones movie? Single worst movie-going experience I've ever had. I felt like I needed to shower afterwards. Or rinse out my eyes with iodine. Anyway, they're all catastrophically bad. That's my point. Peanuts weren't designed to be three dimensional. Look at any toy featuring them. They never really look right from any angles but those Schulz drew in the strip. He cheated their shapes and proportions when drawing them from different angles all the time - that's what cartooning is. It's abstraction. So I was expecting the CG Peanuts movie to be pretty-much the worst thing in the history of awful things. For the next couple of years, every mention of the project made me cringe. But then, I saw the . And I thought, "Hey... that's not bad." But still, it was just a teaser, and mostly featured Snoopy. Could they make a whole film work? How would they handle all of the other characters? Then came . And I thought, "Whoa. I think they nailed it." Because what Blue Sky did, which was the right way, and the only way to animate the characters, was the way Bill Melendez had figured out 50 years ago. Stick to Schulz's designs. If a character doesn't work from an angle or in a certain pose, then they shouldn't be shown that way. Blue Sky didn't animate them as in-the-round CG characters. They restricted them based on Schulz's designs, animating with 3D tools, but as if they were working in 2D. In other words, they became abstractions - just like Schulz had done when he'd created them. It looked brilliant. A slightly textured, slightly dimensional yet still completely faithful version of Schulz's cartoons. I was really impressed. I had no confidence that a studio would ever take such a different approach, especially in this day of Pixar, Disney and Dreamworks all spewing out effectively the same character designs over and over and over again. The big question then was... would the movie itself be any good? The writing has to be true to the characters, to the voices Schulz gave each of them out of his own head and his own heart. Peanuts was an incredibly personal strip to him, which is why it's in his will that it will never be continued by anyone else. Any Peanuts strip you read now are reprints. He never used ghost artists, or gag writers (which are both extremely common in comic strips). When he could no longer continue drawing the strip due to failing health, he ended it. I don't think that it's a coincidence that the very day before the last strip ran in the papers, is the day he passed away. So then... last Friday night, we had a screening of The Peanuts Movie at work. We have a theater there with a state-of-the-art digital cinema projector, and Fox and Blue Sky were gracious enough to send a copy of the movie out for our students to watch. And while you might think animation students will automatically love any animation comes along, the truth is, they can be amongst its harshest critics. Nothing makes an animator madder than wasting their time watching a bad animated movie. However, that wasn't the case. The students genuinely enjoyed this movie - laughing along with it, being touched by the homages to Schulz, connecting with the characters... all of which in a way kind of surprised me. Because from my perspective - sure, I like Peanuts. I'm old. I grew up with Peanuts when it was phenomenally popular. They named a couple of Apollo spacecraft after Charlie Brown and Snoopy, for crying out loud. But I wasn't expecting Peanuts to have crossed generations. I guess I shouldn't have underestimated their timeless appeal. The humor and characters resonate with audiences to this day. Schulz's writing ran the gamut from funny to poignant, silly to melancholy, but always with an underlying sincerity and truthfulness to it all. So did the movie work for me? I suppose at some point, I should start writing an actual movie review. But I wanted it to be very clear - Peanuts means a lot to me. I wouldn't have pursued a life in the arts without it. Getting the movie right, in my eyes, is no trivial matter. And yes, they got it right. I sat through the whole film with a huge smile on my face. The writing was spot-on (with some really funny moments), the animation was perfect (the animators obviously had a lot of fun), but most importantly - the movie stays true to the characters and Schulz's humor. It manages to update the delivery medium of the material without trying to force it into new directions that don't fit. It's not "edgy", the kids aren't spending all their time texting or making pop culture references, the characters are who they have always been. They're timeless. And even though some of the jokes are familiar to fans of the strip, that's okay - because the source material is why all of this worked in the first place. It's Peanuts, it doesn't need to be something else. In fact, it shouldn't. I really appreciated that more is made of the friendship between Charlie Brown and Snoopy than is sometimes seen in the TV specials. They're clearly best friends, and it's really heartwarming to see that emphasized. Charlie Brown is at the center of the plot, and Snoopy is there to support him. Certainly, Snoopy gets his fair share of the spotlight in his fantasy sequences, but even those exist to drive Charlie Brown's story forward. There are a lot of wonderful nods to Charles Schulz throughout the film. It's as if his own hand begins the movie, starting us off on the right track. And there are further homages to Schulz, Bill Melendez (who created the original animated specials) and Vince Guaraldi (who created the original iconic music) throughout - always thoughtful, often funny, and very touching. Carefully selected panels from the strip run alongside and tie into the end credits, which was a perfect way to end the movie. (Plus - there is a post-credits scene, so stick around for that too.) All that said, The Peanuts Movie isn't perfect. There are a few jokes which are a bit too familiar. There are a few liberties taken which are less in line with the comic strip, and more in keeping with some of the animated specials. And there's some dialog at the end of the film which is a bit clunky and overstated. I kept thinking Schulz would have found a simpler, more eloquent way of getting to the point. But in the end, it was still a delightful film to watch, and obviously a labor of love for the people who worked on it, who clearly respect and want to celebrate the legacy of Charles Schulz and Peanuts. I wouldn't mind even waiting another eight years for the next one. Load up the kids, grab some popcorn and check it out. The Peanuts Movie gets a 9/10.

This is part movie review, and part music review. Because it's a review of a movie about music. A few years ago, I'd heard there was a documentary in the works about The Wrecking Crew. I waited years for it to get released, as it was hung up in trying to get the rights for all of the music it contained. But finally, a successful Kickstarter campaign pushed it over the top, and last year it finally got released. This may not mean much to most people, since they don't know what The Wrecking Crew was. Well, that's largely the point of the documentary - to tell this amazing story. I knew of The Wrecking Crew because, as a fan of The Monkees, they were a prominent part of the history of the Monkees, and a critical part of their success. So... who were they? Simply put, they were the studio musicians that largely defined the sound of pop music of the 60's and early 70's. And by largely, I mean hugely. The Monkees were "outed" in a sense, for not having played the instruments on their first two albums. Well of course they didn't - those albums were essentially soundtracks for a TV show about a band. They weren't intended to be anything other than products. And when you're creating a product for mass consumption, you manufacture it. And the way pop records were manufactured in the 60's, was often by bringing in professional studio musicians to lay down the instrumental backing tracks. Thinking back a little bit - of course that makes sense. Especially for vocal groups. Someone had to lay down tracks for Sonny and Cher, or The Mamas and The Papas, or the Everly Brothers, right? There you go. But it went beyond that. It's pretty well known by now that Brian Wilson used studio musicians on a number of Beach Boys albums - notably Pet Sounds. Other groups did too. Why? Because time is money, and some of the bands of that era, while capable musically, weren't full-on professionals, hopping from recording gig to gig 12-16 hours a day, day after day. The Wrecking Crew could knock out backing tracks in a fraction of the time that a typical pop group could, and could do it to a much higher level. They didn't just play the music though. They helped create it. Often shaping it. Adding to it and improving it. Just how much came as a surprise to me the first time I watched The Wrecking Crew. I thought I knew a little about them... but I had no idea just how much they shaped the music of that era. I'd get chills as a musician would play a melody, riff or bass line from some classic song that they'd originally recorded back-in-the-day. Highlighted and brought to the surface, I began to see just how much they contributed to the music, and all without most people ever knowing it. One of the surprising things about that anonymity - is that they're all pretty okay with it. They got paid (and paid well) for their work. Each project was a job. They did it, and moved on to the next. In some cases, playing on number one hits, songs of the year, and doing so occasionally without even knowing who was going to come in later and lay down vocals over it, only later hearing their finished work on the radio when it was selling millions of records. It's all incredibly fascinating stuff. An amazing glimpse into the world of making records. The documentary was written and directed by Denny Tedesco - the son of the late, legendary guitarist Tommy Tedesco. Who? You've heard him play. You may not know it, but you've heard him. Ever hear MacArthur Park? Or Be My Baby? Good Vibrations? Viva Las Vegas? He played for The Beach Boys, Frank Zappa, Harry Nilsson, Elvis, Frank (and Nancy) Sinatra, Cher, The Mamas and The Papas, The Monkees, The Partridge Family... Oh, speaking of TV... ever watch M*A*S*H? Bonanza? Green Acres? The Twilight Zone? Remember the theme songs? Yeah, that guy. And he's played on countless other TV and movie soundtracks. Some speculate he may be the most recorded guitar player ever. Just on M*A*S*H reruns alone, he's probably had his work played more often than anyone. And he's just one of the amazing musicians profiled in this documentary. Sadly, many of them have passed away as this documentary was originally started back in 1995. But even though they didn't live long enough to see the completion of the documentary, we're still fortunate enough to get to hear them tell their incredible stories. I rented the documentary when it was first available on iTunes a year ago. Then I watched it again when it aired on AXS. And I watched it again the other night on Netflix. I think at this point, I might as well buy the Blu-ray. Since I know I'm going to watch it again. Plus I want to watch the bonus footage now, too. The Wrecking Crew gets my absolute highest recommendation. I even watched it once with my folks - and they loved it too, even though they weren't into 60's or 70's pop music. But they do love music, so they were completely fascinated by it. If you love music, you need to watch this film. It's on Netflix, or available to rent on Amazon Prime and iTunes. Or buy it on DVD or Blu-ray. And check out Rob Nichols' Wrecking Crew playlist on Spotify sometime. The Wrecking Crew gets a 10/10. Check it out.

Yeah... I'd never heard of Snowpiercer before, either. This despite it having a fairly-star-studded cast including Chris Evans (Captain America), John Hurt and Ed Harris. I think this film is the reason for a bit of Avengers trivia. In The Avengers' shwarma end-credits scene, Evans is hiding his face with his hand. The reason being, he had grown a beard for another movie, and they couldn't completely hide it. And in Snowpiercer, he has a beard. So I'm guessing Snowpiercer is that movie. As for why I'd never heard of it, I suppose it's because it's not major studio release. It's a limited release of a South Korean production, filmed in Czechoslovakia, based on a French graphic novel. I'm guessing the only reason it's even hitting theaters here at all is because Captain America: The Winter Soldier was a big hit. Anyway, Snowpiercer is... well... weird. But it's weird in a good way. In some regards it's a throwback to sci-fi of the 70's where weird concepts were okay. Ever see Zardoz? Well, that's way weirder than Snowpiercer, but not always by much. Snowpiercer takes elements from various sci-fi, disaster and post-apocalyptic movies, and loads them all on a train. A big one. That's right, a train. So take elements of Logan's Run, Soylent Green, The Day After Tomorrow, 2012, Waterworld and others, load them all up on The Big Bus (IMDb it), and you kind-of have Snowpiercer. In the film, due to science foolishly trying to fix global warming, Earth has been plunged into an ice age and everyone is now dead. Everyone, except those who somehow managed to get on board a massively-long train that never stops, and continually circles the now-frozen planet. Somehow never derailing, wearing out parts, or running out of fuel or food. I mean... you'd think the wheels would wear out, right? So, after 18 years of this, the people at the back of the train living in squalor have had enough, and decide its time to move up to first class. Mysterious messages guide them along their journey as they discover more secrets about the train. The further forward they move, the more history about the train and its passengers are revealed. Although where a lot of these people are sleeping is still somewhat of a mystery. Maybe the Pullman car is in the Directors' Cut. There are definitely some moments of humor in the movie (much of it dark), but the filmmakers take the whole thing rather seriously. Surprisingly, it actually kind-of works in the same way most of the other films I've mentioned work. Once you're on board with the concept (sorry), you can just go along and enjoy the ride (sorry again). The plot is something you just can't think too much about, or the whole film derails (sorry yet again). The acting is all very good, with Chris Evans doing a solid job as a reluctant rebel leader, John Hurt as his enigmatic mentor, and Tilda Swinton's wonderfully oddball turn as the train's number-two in charge. There is quite a lot of violence in the film, but it never felt gratuitous. It served a purpose to set a mood, propel the plot, or have an emotional impact. I'm not a fan of violent films, but I didn't feel completely put-off by it here. When so many movies are focused on being overblown blockbusters, it's nice to see a sci-fi movie that's really sci-fi. Not just action or effects for the sake of dazzling an audience. Maybe the best thing that can be said about Snowpiercer, is that it's unpredictable. It's such an odd mix of ideas in such a bizarre setting, it really does keep you guessing. Sometimes that guessing amounts to "what were they thinking with that idea?", but more often than not, Snowpiercer was worth the trip. If you're looking to relive some of those sci-fi films of the 70's, buy a ticket to ride Snowpiercer. I've certainly spent a worse two hours in a theater. It's kind-of a hard film to score, but we'll just go with a 7.5/10.

Back on April 8, 2015, I posted a status update about the Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice , and my impression at the time was, "Batman v. Superman sure looks... dreary." Monday night (admittedly, at an 11:15PM showing) I saw BvS in at the ArcLight theater in Sherman Oaks. This was in one of their biggest theaters, in an ATMOS-equipped room, and less than a week after the film opened. So even though it was a pretty late showing, and on a week night, you'd expect some kind of a crowd for an epic blockbuster-in-the-making that's been hyped for the past three years. At the very least, a modest smattering of people. Remember how Star Wars: The Force Awakens was completely sold out in some theaters for weeks? Yeah. Not so much here. I think there might have been 8 of us there. Hard to tell... only one person was seated in front of me. Can't say I'm surprised. The Rotten Tomatoes score for the film has been spiraling downward faster than the debris from a collapsing building in Metropolis. It's fascinating to watch and wonder where it will bottom out. It's around 28% now. I think it started in the mid-50's. I wasn't a big fan of Man of Steel, and thought the last Batman film was terrible. And actually, in hindsight, I would score them both considerably lower now. I tend to score films too high when I review them, because I'm coming from a theatrical experience - fresh off of seeing a new spectacle for the first time on a big screen. So my opinions tend to be colored by the immediacy of the visceral impact of the event - rather than being tempered by time and repeat viewings. The fact is, I wouldn't give either movie above a 3/10, now. All of that said - I went to see BvS, willing to give it a chance. If nothing else, it promised that aforementioned spectacle. Now, there were two big problems with the film: The first, was the This basically gave away the plot of the movie. Spoilers galore. The second, was that the first problem really didn't matter. The movie so heavy-handedly spoils everything that's going to happen anyway, spoilers wouldn't have really made any difference. It takes forever to get going, spends an agonizingly long time setting everything up, then the payoffs fall far short of delivering on the movie's promises. Just from the title, you'd expect the big, epic battle between Bats and Supes to take up a really significant part of the film, wouldn't you? It was sure hyped that way in the trailers. But that part of the film was actually pretty short, and the resolution of it was completely unsatisfying. Cheap. Even silly. And then there's a second big fight, but again, as with the first, it's something of a disappointment, and the ending of it is so ham-fistedly telegraphed, it shouldn't catch anyone but the most utterly clueless off-guard. It also doesn't help that a bunch of material is lifted from Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns". If you've read that (and if you're a Batman fan, you have), you're going to see a lot of stuff coming before it happens. I spent a lot of the film waiting. Waiting for the setups to pay off. Waiting for the inevitable to happen. Waiting for something, anything to happen that I wasn't expecting - that either wasn't spoiled in the trailers, or by the movie itself. Now, maybe all of that wouldn't have been a problem, if the film had been any fun. But apart from a few cool action sequences, it just wasn't. It was, as I mentioned before, dreary. I watched the film. But I wasn't into it. I would look at it thinking, "Okay, Ben Affleck is doing a pretty good job here", or "Gal Gadot was a good choice for Wonder Woman - can't wait to see her movie instead", or "Well, I can see where this is going next, can we please get this over with and move onto the next scene", or "Why are some of these shots so grainy", or even, "I bet they handle this a lot better in Captain America: Civil War." And so on. Rarely did I ever care about the people on screen, or what was going to happen to them. Metropolis is in danger again? So what else is new? Anyone still stupid enough to live in skyscrapers in that city should know better by now. And if Gotham City is plagued by crime, and it's just across the river from Metropolis... why didn't Superman go over there and bust some criminals once in awhile? Seems to me he could make some time for that. It's hard to care about a movie full of stupid people. And grumpy, stupid people, at that. I suppose then, the biggest single problem with this film is that I just didn't like the characters. They're all brooding, moody, mopey, self-absorbed, miserable nihilists. Now... doesn't that sound suspiciously like some other superhero movie? Oh, right... The Watchmen. But those movie characters were all spot-on adaptations from the comic book. They were all brooding, moody, mopey, self-absorbed, miserable nihilists. And they were all thoroughly unlikeable (except perhaps Rorschach - who at least had integrity). BvS is effectively a mirror of The Watchmen: Superman is Dr. Manhattan - the emotionless, disaffected, feared, hated, godlike being; Batman is a mix of Rorschach's paranoid, obsessive hatred of criminals and the Comedian's wanton disregard for life ; and Lex Luthor is Adrian Veldt - the world's most brilliant man (and apparently a better detective than Batman) and a quirky psychopath out to destroy what he perceives to be a threat to mankind, regardless of how many innocent lives are lost in the process. Oh that's right... Zack Snyder directed both films. And Man of Steel. So if you've seen The Watchmen and Man of Steel - mix those two together, and you have Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Everyone in this film, pretty much all the time, seems miserable. Even Superman. He's just one unhappy dude. And there's no sense of fun to Batman at all. He's just permanently mad, and so psychologically damaged it's amazing he can even function. Everyone else is upset or angry at someone or something all of the time too. And as for Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor... his motivations for being so completely hateful of Superman are never really explained. There's a backstory missing, somewhere. And Eisenberg plays him as such a completely unhinged nut-case, that it's hard to take him seriously (yes - his character is a danger by his actions, but it's hard to take him personally serious as a threat). There is, however, an exception to the misery. Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. She is the lone bright spark in an otherwise dismal world. There's a sly playfulness about her when she's Diana Prince, and when she gets involved in the big fight scene - she's the only one who looks like she's having fun. Hey DC - it's okay to have fun in a comic book movie! Just because you're trying to deal with a serious theme, doesn't mean everyone has to be completely miserable all of the time! Even though her screen time is severely limited, I'm looking forward to seeing her film. I wasn't before, but I am now. (She already even has her own theme song in the movie. Sadly... it's .) I can't say I'm looking forward to Justice League* though. That's Snyder's next superhero depression-fest on the docket. The teases in BvS did nothing to pique my interest. We caught some glimpses of the other future JL members, but the problem was - everyone already knew that was going to happen. That was widely announced months ago, with photos of Aquaman. There were no surprises here. And some of the glimpses went on far too long. They should be quick and mysterious, but as noted, they felt more like extras for a video release - as if Snyder was saying, "Hey look everyone - you've found our Easter Egg!" It grinds the movie to a halt. More is not always better. Is it unfair to judge Justice League when it hasn't even been shot yet? Well, the CEO of Warner Bros. said, "...the worlds of DC are very different... they're steeped in realism, and they're a little bit edgier than Marvel's movies." (I'm guessing he didn't actually see Green Lantern.) "Edgier" doesn't necessarily equate to being "good", and in the case of BvS, it doesn't equate to "fun" either. Hopefully, DC can figure out a balance. They don't have to be Marvel (and shouldn't). Even Marvel isn't always Marvel, as Fox has its own distinct feel for the X-Men movies. And DC seems to be "getting it" on TV (admittedly, I haven't watched any of their stuff, but the reviews have certainly been better than BvS). Maybe they should give a few more notes to Zack this time. If the scathing reviews for BvS keep pouring in, they probably will. Still, the movie's already made back its production budget, and as long as it doesn't totally tank, it should still turn a profit (after all of the marketing gets paid for). Box office notwithstanding, in the end, BvS just wasn't... fun. Superman was a mopey loser; Batman was a grumpy, violent sociopath; Lex Luthor was a babbling crackpot; and even the usually buoyant Amy Adams was wasted as Lois Lane was thrown back into being the old stereotypical nosey reporter who always gets in trouble. The film took forever to get going, spent way too long setting things up that never paid off or weren't important, had massive gaps in logic (even for a superhero film), and was way, way, way too long. They could have easily cut a half hour out of this movie. And they never knew when to end it either. It was like listening to someone who never knows when to stop talking even after they've completely run out of things to say (or like reading this blog, probably). And some things which should have had more time spent on them (Lex's hatred), were completely glossed over. Was it all bad? No. As I mentioned, Gal Gadot was a bright spot. I'm glad they didn't spend much time with her backstory either, because there's a whole movie's worth of origin story that needs to be told. Also, despite the morose version of the character he was saddled with by Snyder, I think Ben Affleck is the best Batman/Bruce Wayne since Adam West. (And yes - Adam West was a great Batman, because his version of Batman/Bruce Wayne was always true to the character within the milieu of that show and its world.) One of the highlights and true standout moments of BvS is a brawl where Batman takes out an entire room full of henchmen. In fact, you can see a better edit of that scene in , than what ended up in the final film. That is pretty-much the highlight of the movie. Watch it twice. There... I just saved you fourteen bucks. So is Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice a truly bad film? Well, it's certainly true to its vision. At times it lives up to being a visual spectacle. It's (generally) well-crafted, apart from CG creature effects that would have been right at home in 2008 (checks watch... nope, it's 2016). But even the spectacle value of it is mostly ground that's already been covered: we spend some of the movie re-watching Man of Steel. Batman's origin is re-told again. There are a lot key ideas taken straight from the comics, and much of the rest of it seems all-too-familiar. It's also too long, too self-absorbed, too dreary, too wordy, and unrelenting in its lack of fun. It may not be bad like Good Dinosaur is bad, or some other really awful superhero films are bad, but it's certainly not what it could have been. In a way, it's more like how Tomorrowland was bad, in that it doesn't live up to its own promises. Worse yet, it doesn't live up to the mythos of its characters, and treats them with disrespect, if not outright contempt. The handful of cool action scenes can't save it. Wonder Woman couldn't even save it. Save your money. Wait for it to show up on TV. You won't be missing anything. Batman v Superman: Yawn of Justice gets a 4/10. And at some point, I'll probably wish I'd scored this one lower, too. *(I am, however looking forward both to , and the episode for BvS.)

So after the fatboy slim thread I've been wondering where else one might find reference to the Atari ST computers in popular culture? Were they in any movies or TV shows, mentioned in any song lyrics or books? I have been watching movies and shows lately (X files, Seinfeld) and really enjoy spotting the computers of the era on the shows. I NEVER saw Atari's growing up, just Mac's and Windows machines, (with the occasional Commodore or Amiga) so i'm curious if they were in front of me somewhere all along. Thanks and looking forward to seeing what comes up!

Does anyone remember the How to Beat Home Videogames series from VHS back in 1983? Giving you all the tips and hints on Atari 2600, Colecovision, Atari 5200, and Vextrex games. And that Barry Manilow looking dude as the host and narrator. Does anyone know if this is sold on DVD by any chance? http://youtu.be/hGUiNMRAEXs http://youtu.be/iaI4BzPxgRs http://youtu.be/FVIJojK6oHg

Because there apparently aren't enough animated dinosaur movies out there already, and because Disney didn't learn their lesson from the last one of these that they made, we have Pixar's The Good Dinosaur. We had a screening of it at work the other week, and while none of the creative team were there to present it, the reps from Disney and Pixar who were there, felt under some obligation to tell us how "close to the heart" this film was for all of them, and how this movie was all about the "power of family". Now, when someone feels obligated to tell you what the underlying theme is for the movie you're about to see, you know you're in trouble. But then, The Good dinosaur has had nothing but trouble since its inception. It was pushed back from its original release date twice, had the original director and producer fired from the project, and with less than six months to go before its release, had nearly the entire voice cast replaced. I'm sure there must be some point at which movie studios see a train-wreck like this coming and it's still possible to stop it. But The Good Dinosaur passed that point, and kept on a-rollin'. Presumably, they got to some point where they'd spent so much money on it, that it made more sense to just try and shove it out the door in whatever state it was in and try to recoup some money from it, than ashcan it completely and try to write off the whole thing. You might have guessed by now that this isn't going to exactly be a positive review. The funny thing is, if you read many of the reviews for this film on Rotten Tomatoes, they all start off about the same way... "This isn't a bad film, but it's not one of Pixar's best," and then the reviewers inevitably find something about the film to praise (typically the visuals or animation), and end up giving it a begrudgingly positive review, as if the fact that it's a Pixar film somehow earns it a free pass. Consequently, the film has ended up with a much higher average score than it really deserves. Well, I'm not giving Pixar a free pass. The Good Dinosaur is, in fact, a bad film. It's borderline terrible. If not for Cars 2 (which will likely, and hopefully, stand forever as Pixar's worst film) this would be right at the bottom. It's so bad, it's really difficult to stick to my spoiler-free policy to accurately describe why it's so bad. While I still hate the idea of spoiling any films for anyone, the simple fact is, there's nothing in this film that's worth seeing in the first place. But I'll use Spoiler tags where necessary. First, let's get the one positive thing out of the way - the backgrounds in this film are astonishing. Even for Pixar, these are breathtaking visuals. They're hyper-realistic, to the point where you'd almost swear you were looking at a pristine, idealized natural environment. It's really next-level stuff, but it's sadly wasted here. I would have rather spent 90 minutes just watching the backgrounds, frankly. So, onto the movie. The premise for the film is that the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs missed, and they continued developing into marginally more intelligent versions of themselves. The movie takes place when cavemen have appeared, so it's basically like a prequel to The Flintstones, except before the humans took over and enslaved the dinosaurs. The film centers around a family of agrarian dinosaurs whose farm is in jeopardy, because a caveman child keeps stealing all of their corn. Now, I'm not sure how a 50 pound kid is eating enough corn to risk starving out five dinosaurs, but there you go. The youngest dinosaur - Arlo, who was born the runt of the litter (see also: Finding Nemo) - is tasked with stopping the kid. Of course things go wrong and the two of them end up lost, and have to rely on each other to find their way home. Now, by this point the movie has already degenerated into a series of predictable clichés, and never manages to find a direction. It's a scattered mess as it jumps between being a family drama, a comedy, a coming-of-age story, an adventure, a buddy film, a western (I am not kidding - there are cowboy dinosaurs in this mess), a kid's movie, and pretty-much anything else you could think of to borrow from other, much better films. None of it is done well, either, as everything comes off as trite and half-hearted, and the characters are generally unlikable or at best unsympathetic. The only character that's remotely appealing is the caveboy (only ever refereed to as "Spot"), and he isn't even the titular character. This is supposed to be Arlo's journey, but as so often happens in animated films, the sidekick ends up being far more interesting than the lead, and this sidekick doesn't even talk. Besides the jumbled, random mess of a plot, I had a real issue with how Arlo's story is resolved. He's effectively bounced along from point to point by circumstance, and by the end hasn't really learned anything. At the end of the film, The ending doesn't get any better from there, either. But then again, by that point I really didn't care. Maybe apathy killed the dinosaurs. So the story is a disjointed mess, the characters are unlikable, and the writing is terrible. The few times the audience laughed at the film were due to it being embarrassingly bad (cowboy dinosaurs) or wildly inappropriate Finally, is the look of the film itself. Yes, the backgrounds were stunning in their beauty and realism. But the character designs had nothing to do with their environment, nor each other. The main dinosaur family looked like Gummi candy. The villains were ugly and indistinguishable from each other, the cowboy dinosaurs were heavily caricatured, and the humans looked like they were thrown together almost as an afterthought. The Good Dinosaur is an eye-roller. There's not a genuine moment in the entire film. It's movie making by committee at its worst, and a huge stumble for Pixar. They refused to let die an idea that nobody thought was working, yet nobody had the courage to just walk away from. Perhaps the biggest puzzler in all is this: why is this movie about dinosaurs? There's no reason for it. The fact that they're dinosaurs contributes nothing to the story. They could have been replaced by almost any other characters, and the movie would have been exactly the same. Maybe for the original concept it made sense, but there was never any payoff here. Maybe they figured they could still sell some cute dinosaur toys. The "Good" Dinosaur, isn't. It gets a 2/10. Go see The Peanuts Movie instead. Or a documentary on Wyoming. Sanjay's Super Team, the latest Pixar short, precedes the movie. It's an admirable and obviously heartfelt effort, but being such a personal film for the director (about being raised as a boy in America with a traditional Hindu upbringing), it felt more to me like a student film or an independent project, than a studio short subject. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and the film was certainly well produced, but for most of it, I just couldn't find a connection with it. Up next... a little science fiction film that some people have been talking about.

Ant-Man? Really? I thought Marvel was scraping the bottom of a pretty low barrel when they dusted off Guardians of the Galaxy and turned that into a movie... but Ant-Man? Then again... Guardians of the Galaxy turned out pretty well. Oddly enough, so did Ant-Man. Better than Age of Ultron, certainly. And as far as Marvel solo movies go, I'd put this right up there after Iron Man and Captain America: The Winter Soldier. The reason it works so well, simply put, are the characters. Paul Rudd hits all of the right notes as Scott Lang/Ant-Man. He brings heart and humor to the character, and is immediately likable and sympathetic. Michael Douglas anchors the film as Hank Pym, bringing a sense of gravitas (and humor as well) to the role, and Evangeline Lilly also does a great job in bringing a strong female presence to the film, and uh... well... she's pretty hot, too. Ahem. The only character that doesn't quite work so well is the main villain, until he goes full-tilt crazy during the big fight, but they could have put anyone in the same suit at that point, and it would have worked just as well. But he's less the point of the film, than the journey of Scott Lang, and how all of this fits into the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe. And yes, this does fit very neatly into the rest of the MCU, from the opening segment that sets up the film, to the mid and post-credits easter eggs (yes, it's time to sit through the credits all the way through the end again - thanks for nothing, Age of Ultron). The movie has some great action sequences, and the usual slate of solid special effects, but what really won me over (and the audience I was with) was the humor. There are some genuinely funny moments throughout which keep the mood light, break the tension, and introduce us to some great supporting characters (Michael Peña nearly steals the film). Marvel still understands that, in the end, this is a comic book movie. Yes, comic books can tell serious, dark, dramatic stories, but I'd prefer to actually have fun when I go see a film about people running around in goofy-looking tights. Can't say I'm looking forward to Batman v Superman much, since Warner Bros. has flat-out stated their films are intentionally "edgier" and grounded in "reality". (Apparently, none of them actually saw Green Lantern ). Ant-Man surprised me by how much I enjoyed it. As a fan, it pushed all of the right buttons - had all of the right cameos, showed us all of the characters we needed to see, teased us about what was next; but it was also just a lot of fun. They managed to take a character that even had a comic book nerd like me scratching my head, and made him not only engaging and likable, but cool. They made his powers cool. They made the ants cool. And as long as you don't think about any of it too much, you'll likely have as much fun as I did. Marvel is at its best when it focuses on just a few characters at a time. In other words... in the end, Ant-Man succeeds because (and I really apologize for this)... it's a small film. Ant-Man gets an 8/10.

Pixar has an interesting history of making terrible trailers for what turn out to be great films. The trailers for Inside Out did nothing to pique my interest in seeing the film. But at the reception to this year's Producers' Show, I talked with some people from the studio who were genuinely excited about the movie. Now, if the people who have to spend day after day working on something, still like it after several years, that's a good sign. From my standpoint, I was just glad to see Pixar making a film whose title didn't end in a number. Since Up in 2009, only Brave wasn't a sequel of some sort, and they've already announced Toy Story 4, Finding Nemo 2 (Finding Dory), The Incredibles 2, and (please, no...) Cars 3. Pixar used to be an island of relief from a sea of animated sequels, but since being acquired by Disney, that's history. Even when the sequels are good, Pixar just isn't perceived as the creative force it once was. So on the now-rare occasion when they make an original film, they really need to get it right. The day after this year's Producers' Show, Pixar gave an early screening of Inside Out at CalArts (the film's director - Pete Docter - and much of Pixar, are alumni from the Character Animation program). However, I didn't go. Usually, when a studio brings a film for us to see, I try to attend. But I skipped it this time. For one thing, our theater only holds 120 people, and there are over 160 students in our program, so it's not always the most comfortable viewing environment in there. But also, I was so exhausted from the Producers' Show and the weeks leading up to it, I had already decided to take the day off and stay home. And frankly, after watching 162 student films multiple times, I'd already seen more than enough animation recently. Afterwards though, I kind of wished I had seen it there, because the reaction was apparently phenomenal. I was told you could hear some of the students actually crying during the film, and at the end, they gave Pete Docter a standing ovation that lasted several minutes. That's pretty unheard of. Sure, animation students are particularly appreciative when they see a good film, but they're also pretty critical when they don't. Anyway, after catching up on some other summer films, finally, last weekend I managed to see Inside Out (back at the ArcLight). And while not standing-ovation-worthy, it was still a very good film. The basic premise is, our emotions are controlled by tiny cartoon characters running around in our heads: Joy, Sadness, Anger, Disgust and Fear. I suppose having any more than that would have just made the film too cluttered. The main character in the film whose emotions we're watching is an eleven-year-old girl named... uh... something. Emily maybe? I'm not really sure. And that's kind of the problem I had with the film. The cartoon emotions are more interesting than the girl whose head they're inside. The girl's family has to move from an idyllic life in Minnesota, to the festering scum-pit that is San Francisco. At least, that's how it appears in her eyes (the San Francisco board of tourism is probably not going to use this movie for any promotional purposes anytime soon). She has to leave her old friends behind, attend a new school, and live in a run-down house with no yard, and no furniture since their stuff hasn't arrived yet. Consequently, her emotions are trying their best to cope with the situation, but things go wrong, as Joy and Sadness get lost in memory storage, leaving the girl with only Disgust, Anger and Fear. And then, apparently, parts of her personality start collapsing, memories start fading, and... well it all gets a little dark and kind of weird. I'm sure in there someplace is a metaphor for growing up. Certainly, at times, the film is a tear-jerker. But it almost seemed manipulatively so. As if the emotional payoff for the audience wasn't earned because of the arc of the main character, so much as it was crafted to elicit that response using the little emotion characters. I felt there was a lack of genuine connection between the girl and her emotions, as if the emotions weren't really part of her, but merely watching and manipulating her. Maybe that relationship resonated more honestly with eleven year-old girls, or parents of eleven year-old girls, but I didn't feel particularly connected to the main character. Lack of connection aside, I did think Inside Out was a good film, and by and large an entertaining one. That said, there are a few in the film, and at times the world inside the girl's mind seems haphazardly thrown together for the sake of forcing the emotions to follow a particular path. There are some funny moments in the film (the funniest by far were during the end credits, when we got to see the emotions of other people), but the film is less about being funny, than about the emotional storying playing out. There's some forced drama that seems artificial (and predictable), but the characters in the film, if not always memorable, are at least likable. There are a few truly engaging characters along the way, good voice acting, and Pixar's typically solid animation, but no particular scene that stands out as being amazing or ground-breaking. The look of the world inside the girl's mind was also somewhat disappointing. We see glimpses of places that look like they would be fun to explore, but we never get to really experience them in all their splendor. Rather, the movie spends most of its time amongst her stored memories, which look like endless rows of gumballs. The real world that the girl inhabits is dreary and unpleasant, with only her memories from Minnesota serving as bright spots. Inside Out isn't Pixar's best film, but it's a solid, promising return to them making films from more ideas. With a string of sequels lined up, we probably should enjoy this while we can. Because based on the , things aren't looking so good. Inside Out gets a 7.9/10. Preceding the movie was Pixar's umpteenth short film - Lava. This left me completely underwhelmed. The short was about a couple of singing volcanoes, and using the word "lava" as a pun for "love". And that was it. The design and animation of the volcanoes was incredibly disappointing (and a new low for Pixar), and the story fell completely flat. I suppose if you like seven minutes of ukulele playing, maybe it will work for you. At our Producers' show, we had two films about anthropomorphic mountains: An Object at Rest (which was just nominated for a Student Academy Award) and The Mountain King, both of which were far better written, better animated, more entertaining, and more compelling than Pixar's effort.

So, I went to see Avengers: Age of Ultron last night. Okay, to be fair - I actually went this morning. Midnight is "technically" morning. I usually don't go in for first-day screenings, but thought it would be fun. It wasn't. I wish I hadn't bothered. Why? Well, it wasn't the audience. There was a good audience there, including some students from the college I work at. So the comic book nerd factor was pretty high. That was good. It wasn't the seating. Even though the place was pretty full, I managed to get a good seat. So that was good. Snacks were incredibly expensive. But they were good anyway. And besides, you don't go to the movies to save money. You go to have fun. I didn't. You see, it's entirely possible that Avengers: Age of Ultron is a good movie. It probably is. Parts of it looked fun. What I could see of it. Which, according to this article and this one was somewhere between 15% and 50% the film. The problem was that I saw it in 2D, at a theater which left the stupid 3D lens on the projector. What's happening is, you're effectively watching one-eye's worth of a 3D movie, through a rapidly flickering polarizing lens. Half the brightness. If you're lucky. Even while the trailers were running (which I'd seen online) I kept thinking, "Is that dark? That looks dark. Maybe I'm remembering the trailer wrong." But it was clear, or rather, it wasn't, that by the time the movie was underway the movie was too dark. Far too dark. Every scene was dim, washed out and blurry (a "ghosting" effect is part of the problem of running a 2D movie on a projector set up for 3D). Only daylight scenes were reasonably bright, and any action was blurry and impossible to follow. Now, I should have gotten up and walked out, gone to the manager, and demanded they fix it. But that's like going to the manager of a McDonald's and complaining because their food tastes like crap. It's completely pointless. Plus, I kept hoping it would get better. But it never did. It ruined the entire movie. I could never get it out of my head that "I wish I could see this better". And it particularly drives me crazy because I work with digital cinema files. I know how this stuff is supposed to work, and how amazing it can look. Last weekend I was able to run our annual screening of 162 student films, running 6 1/2 hours, on a projector that costs less than a tenth of what a movie theater projector does, and it looked far better than what I saw last night. I'm in the process of making a digital cinema file for another screening in Hollywood at the Director's Guild of America theater next week. It's not rocket science. This is a well-established standard with rules. You can bet that theater will get it right. But not your local multiplex. I e-mailed the theater chain to complain. I've done so before, and they sent me some free tickets. Whoopee. I'd rather they fix the problem. But again, it's like expecting McDonald's to not taste like crap. Ain't gonna happen. There are a lot of movies I'd like to go see this year. Now I'm wondering if I'm even going to bother. Plus, now I have to find a decent theater to go see Avengers: Age of Ultron. Because as far as I'm concerned - I still haven't seen it. It was an Edwards theater. Part of the Regal group. So my recommendation - go anywhere else. And read the articles I linked to first. If the picture looks dim, get out, and get your money back. Edwards Valencia Stadium 12 gets a 0/10. Avengers: Age of Ultron gets... well, I haven't seen it yet.

Okay… here's the actual review for The Imitation Game. The Imitation Game is based on a book about the life of Alan Turing - one of the founders of computer science, and creator of the Turing Test (and if you don't know what that is, you need to turn in your nerd card). Given the somewhat obscure subject matter of the film, and the low-key advertising campaign, I was surprised to show up to a theater with a long line waiting to see it, and a packed house. The movie flips between three time periods - his youth at boarding school, his work during World War II, and a couple of years prior to his death. The film does a pretty good job of tying the three of them together thematically without getting confusing when jumping back and forth. The bulk of the movie takes place during the war, covering his work towards building a machine to break the codes of Germany's Enigma machine. Not being overly familiar with his biography, it's hard to say how much of the film is historically accurate, and how much has been altered to make it more entertaining to audiences. Certainly a great deal of history and details were glossed over, both for time constraints and more streamlined storytelling. However, it was a very well-acted film across the board, and the war-era parts of the story were particularly compelling. I was disappointed, however, that they never really got into the theories behind how his machine worked. One moment he's scribbling designs on sheets of paper, and a few scenes later, they're building the thing. And while I understand that most general audiences aren't going to be interested in technical details, the man's work was about those very details. So I guess I'll have to track down one of the other movies about him. At times the movie gets a bit heavy-handed and makes it seem like Turing single-handedly won the war. But the film isn't meant to be a critical appraisal of his life or work. Rather it tells Turing's story in a sympathetic light, tries to right some wrongs, and give him the kind of public acknowledgment that he never had. The Imitation Game is a solid, often compelling bio-pic, that sheds a little light not only on a critical time in our history, but also on the life of someone who never really got the sort of accolades he deserved. Not a perfect film, and certainly biased, but still a very good movie. The Imitation Game gets an 8/10 (which shouldn't come as any surprise, if you read yesterday's post ). (And in case you were wondering - yes… there is a 2600 version of the Enigma machine.)

The Imitation Game is… Wait a second. It just occurred to me that writing these reviews is an awful lot like writing book reports back in high school. I hated writing book reports. The Imitation Game gets an 8/10.

I went to see Big Hero 6 well over a month ago during the Thanksgiving weekend, so this review is a bit late. In fact it's really late, because I saw the movie a couple of weeks before that, and still hadn't written a review. I first saw it at work, when co-director Don Hall screened it for our students, and did a Q&A afterwards. This was a great chance for the student to see the film and hear Don talk about it, but I was stuck halfway behind a pillar in the back corner of the room during the screening, so it wasn't the best way to see it for me. So I decided to go see it again at a movie theater. (You can read interviews with Don and co-director Chris Williams here and here - but beware of spoilers!) Big Hero 6 is loosely adapted from an obscure limited series comic book from Marvel. Having no familiarity with the original, I had no expectations going into the movie, other than it had something to do with a big, inflatable robot. The story revolves around a young robotics whiz named Hiro, who has one of his inventions stolen and uses a robot his brother created and various technologies to trick out some of his techie friends to try to stop the bad guy from using it for nefarious purposes. While an entertaining enough film (there are some solid action scenes and a really great car chase involving plenty of gratuitous handbrake action), I never really empathized with the main characters. They're just all a bit too shallow and predictable. Hiro goes through a pretty typical character arc, and his friends' personalities seemed very cliché and one-dimensional (the most interesting is the stoner-esque character Fred, but mostly because he has the funniest lines of any of the humans). Once they get their abilities, their sudden prowess with them gets completely glossed-over in what my be the briefest "learning their powers" montage in the history of superhero movies. Even the villain fell flat, personality-wise - it's only his stolen tech that makes him interesting. The best character in the movie - by far - is the aforementioned big, inflatable robot - Baymax. He's easily the most compelling of the group, having the best lines, the most heart (despite being a robot), and he's the most fun to watch. Seeing the movie in a room full of animation students was especially fun whenever Baymax was onscreen because they'd respond to wonderful little moments in his animation that might go missed by most audiences. He's really the star of this film - it's heart and soul. Story-wise, it's all pretty predictable fare. It'd be hard not to tell where the movie was going. Criticisms aside, Big Hero 6 is not a bad film by any stretch of the imagination. It's a pretty fun ride, and Baymax alone makes it worth seeing - the character animation on him is as good as anything you'd see in the best Pixar films (if not better). Beyond that is the phenomenal design of the film. The mythical San Fransokyo is a triumph of design and a stellar showcase for the new Hyperion rendering technology that Disney used on the film for the first time. The attention to detail is amazing and the visuals are often fantastic. This film really brings Disney CG animation to a new level. Big Hero 6 is worth seeing (and yes... stay for a post-credits bonus scene), but maybe at just a matinee price. In the end, it's brought down by flat characters and an all-too predictable story. It's not on the level of either Wreck-It Ralph or The Incredibles, but it's still a good movie, and Baymax is terrific fun to watch. On a scale of 1-10, Big Hero 6 gets a 7.

So I went to see Frozen a few days ago. Opening week, Black Friday, afternoon matinee, packed house, tons of kids. Now I've been in movie theaters before with lots of kids, and if the movie doesn't completely hold their attention, it's a miserable place to be. They get restless and bored, never sit still, and never stop talking. If a movie is too complex for them to follow, they never stop asking questions. If it's too scary for real little kids (and the parents too irresponsible to recognize that their kids shouldn't be there in the first place) they scream and cry. For a film to be successful in that setting, it has to strike a tricky balance. That doesn't mean the movie has to be dumbed-down to the point of being agonizing for adults to sit through though (despite what movie studios generally think). Kids are a lot smarter than studios give them credit for. A movie should be able to entertain both kids and adults alike - just on different levels. The basic qualities of a good story and compelling characters should be able to entertain kids, and if the writing is smart enough, have enough additional layers to keep adults engaged as well. Going into Frozen, I can't say I was expecting much. It's had a rough life in production. After Disney's The Princess and the Frog failed to be the hit they were hoping for, Disney assumed people were done with princess movies, so they cancelled the ones that were in-progress, including an adaptation of Hans Christian Andersen's The Snow Queen. The film Rapunzel was too near completion to outright cancel, and went through a lot of changes before finally being retitled and released as Tangled. When that turned out to be a hit, suddenly princess films were back in, and Disney revived The Snow Queen - following Tangled's lead with a new title - Frozen - and trying to give it the same updated vibe. (I suppose Pinocchio would be re-titled Wooden, Snow White would become Poisoned, and Pocahontas would be… well, it would still just be Boring ). Anyway, Frozen was rushed headlong into production and I wasn't hearing very many positive things about it. Usually if a film is going to be good (like Wreck-It Ralph) there's some advance buzz about it ahead of time. Plus, the early trailers for Frozen - featuring an incredibly annoying and bugg-utly snowman sidekick - left me cold (sorry… ). All that said, I was pleasantly surprised by Frozen. I think this is as close as Disney has gotten to a "classic" Disney fairy tale since Beauty and the Beast. It's not as good as that film, but it has that sort of feel to it, as if they're on the right track. The movie has basically nothing to do with the original Hans Christian Andersen story, so this is very much a Disney story, and as such it comes with the usual Disney baggage - wacky sidekicks, predictable story elements, cookie-cutter characters, forgettable musical numbers, and plot-holes big enough to drive a sleigh through. The point of a Disney film like this isn't so much does it break any new ground, but is it competently entertaining enough for what it is? You know what you're in for when you walk into the theater, just as you already know what you're in for when you wait in line for any ride at Disneyland. So the question is - do you still enjoy the ride? For Frozen, I enjoyed the ride for what it was. They mixed up the formulas enough to make the film interesting, and the wintery setting makes it visually stand on its own (at least as far as Disney films are concerned). One gripe - they didn't do a very good job of establishing that it was warm summer day when the city of Arendelle got frozen. It wasn't until well afterwards that I caught onto that. For all I knew, it was a cold climate to begin with and could have been mid-November already. In many ways, the character of the Snow Queen is treated similarly to the Beast from Beauty and the Beast. The Beast wasn't so much a villain, as he was misunderstood. Here, the Snow Queen isn't so much evil as she is a tragic figure, which leaves her ultimate fate in question (and helps keep some tension in the film). Unfortunately, the film didn't spend nearly as much time with her as it should have. I wanted to see more of the story from her perspective, especially early on. The other characters are likable enough, but most don't really offer anything new. Just the same clichéd Disney characters, with perhaps a little more 'tude. The ice trader Kristoff has some fun moments with his reindeer Sven early on, where since Sven (mercifully) doesn't talk, Kristoff does both sides of their conversations. But it's only used a couple of times, then sadly abandoned in favor of the ugly little talking snowman for comedy relief and plot exposition. The animation is as good as I've seen from Disney in recent years. There's one snow monster which is particularly fun to watch. The problem is - most of it is all so much more of the same. It's competent, solid character animation, but it's not groundbreaking. Disney should be the studio making breakthroughs in CG animation that everyone else is compared against, rather than merely rising to an acceptable level of competency. Part of that is their generic approach to character design. You could interchange Frozen's characters with those from Tangled, and never notice the difference. I keep hoping Disney will cut loose and design something really amazing for a change. Fantasia-level amazing. Disney changed styles radically from Snow White to Sleeping Beauty. There's nothing keeping them from doing the same thing with CG animation, other than the willingness to do so (see also: Pixar, before they became a sequel machine). The songs were okay, but for the life of me I can't recall a single one of them now. Again, they felt like they could have been lifted from any one of a number of other Disney films. The one that the audience responded to the most was a throw-away comedy number where the little snowman sings about longing to enjoy the days of summer. The rest of the songs could best be described as dramatic musical filler. Well crafted, but not critical to the story. Plus, the mix on a couple of songs made it really difficult to discern what the lyrics were. Still though, despite its flaws, Frozen is a very good Disney fairy tale. It certainly "feels" like a classic Disney fairy tale. But perhaps because of that, and the sameness of it all, it never really emotionally resonated with me. But in a theater packed with kids on a busy Black Friday afternoon in Orange, CA, it managed to keep everyone entertained, enough to feel it was worth a matinee ticket and a bag of popcorn. Frozen gets a 6.6/10. (Addendum: I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that Frozen was mercifully free of poop and fart jokes. A definite point in its favor.)

I'll admit I didn't have much interest in seeing the latest X-Men film. While I thought X-Men: First Class was good, the rest of the films in the series were very hit-or-miss. X-Men Origins: Wolverine was pretty bad, X-Men: The Last Stand was awful, The Wolverine was kind-of boring, and even in the first two movies which overall were pretty good, I felt that some of the characters were never really captured very well (Cyclops, Kitty, Rogue, Nightcrawler). The actors or writing for them just missed the mark. Plus we never got to see the X-Men work out in the Danger Room. That should have been one of the first sequences we got to see, and was a missed opportunity to show to the audience who these characters are, how they interact, and what their powers can do. And I've never been that fond of the leather costumes. Too bland. Too similar looking. They needed some color in them. But the cast did have their strong points - Professor X, Magneto, Wolverine, Storm, Mystique were all pretty-much nailed, and the films did a pretty good job of touching on some of the "persecuted because they're different" themes that are prevalent in the X-Men comics. Besides, I was a huge X-Men fan back in my comic-collecting days, so when they decided to bring the Days of Future Past storyline to the movies, I pretty-much had to go. It had the potential to be either excellent, or catastrophically bad. As it turned out, it was excellent, but they had to make some changes to the story to make it more palatable to movie audiences. For example, with Hugh Jackman being the franchise star, he had to be the one to go back in time instead of Kitty XM:DOFP (really… they have got to start shortening these titles) manages to merge both the cast of The First Class and the previous movies into a cohesive unit. The time shifting works, and you really do get the sense that these two timelines and generations of characters are tied together (although I do wish they'd spent some more time in the future). Time travel is always a tricky subject, and can be confusing if not handled well, but it worked here. The goals and rules were established up front, and they (mostly) stuck to them. Keeping the audience on board with something potentially this complicated is challenging. Most people seeing this are certainly used to superhero movies by now, but that doesn't mean they know the back-catalog of X-Men comics. So there has to be a balance struck with keeping newbies on board with an understandable plot, and satisfying the comic-savvy viewers who are excepting more depth. Across the board all of the characters worked for me, and I'd say this is the first X-film to achieve that. They didn't attempt to bring everyone from both sets of the films' casts into this movie. It would have just become a cluttered mess. They chose key characters carefully, and gave them important roles. The standout new character for the film is Quicksilver. I had always considered him to be a minor Flash-knockoff in the comic books, but he has the best moment in the new film. His role in the film is limited, but it's one of the best things about it, and I think one of the best superhero movie moments ever. It fully captures everything about his abilities and personality, and gives the best - and most fun - glimpse we've ever had from a superhero's point-of-view. It's that good. I'm now really curious to see what they do with that character in Avengers 2. Even though it's a completely different world, character and actor, there are going to be inevitable comparisons, and frankly, Joss Whedon has his work cut out for him. One minor gripe - Beast is too light-blue. His fur should be a lot darker. It makes him look like a bad 70's shag carpet. The story works very well. It has the sort of weight and importance a superhero movie should. There's an urgency about it, and an uncertainty about the outcome until the final conflict plays out. One of the things I like best about it, is the scale of the threat. It's on a planetary scale, and it feels like it. Unlike Man Of Steel, where you only had a hole being drilled through Metropolis and just two super-guys punching each other in the face, or even The Avengers where such a small part of New York was being attacked that just six people could hold the aliens at bay, this feels much bigger, because we see the ultimate consequences of actions in the past that play out in the future. Good stuff. The filmmakers did a pretty-good job of setting the film in the 1970's. They must have raided every Goodwill store in the country to come up with that many fake leather jackets and bell-bottom pants. Some of the technology, however, looked a bit too modern. There's a mutant detector in particular that looked like something Apple would have designed just recently. It should have had chrome switches and fake woodgrain. The special effects and action sequences (again, Quicksilver being a standout) were all top-notch. The past's Sentinels worked very well, although I expected them to be much bigger, as they had been in the comic books. The future sentinels (based loosely on Nimrod) were also well done, although their design reminded me a bit too much of the Destroyer from Thor. Now then… a spoiler section. Since this is a spoiler-free review, I won't actually spoil anything specific. But still, if you haven't seen the movie yet, skip this part. Oh, and use Spoiler tags if commenting where appropriate. The next movie (X:Men Apocalypse) is rumored to follow up with the First Class cast in the 80's, which I suppose is fine (time to raid the Goodwills again for parachute pants and shoulder pads). After all, it'd be difficult to keep making movies with two different casts in two different time periods. But still, I hope we do get to see some of the original cast again. Anyway, X-Men: Days of Future Past is well-worth seeing on the big screen. Grab some popcorn and go! It gets an 8.5/10.

10:52 PM Sitting in a theater with just two other people (two more went to get snacks) waiting for the 11:00 PM show to start. I'd planned to go to the 10:00, but didn't get out of work in time. So stay tuned for the review - coming later tonight! Looking forward to the film. The reviews have been really positive. I guess I'll know in just over two hours. Hey - two more people! We've got a crowd! Time to post this, then shut 'er down. 8 movie trailers and two-plus hours later… That was excellent! Definitely the best solo Marvel superhero movie since Iron Man. Now, if you happen to follow this blog regularly (or irregularly, I don't judge), you'd probably notice that there wasn't a review for Thor: The Dark World. That's because I didn't go see it. That, or The Wolverine. I just wasn't very interested in the Thor sequel. I thought the first Thor film was okay, and I thought Thor worked really well in The Avengers. But even though I was a fan of Walt SimOnson's run on Thor, that was 25+ years ago, and the trailers just didn't do much for me. That said, I did rent it a couple of weeks ago on iTunes, and actually thought it was pretty good. Still haven't seen The Wolverine. Guess I should rent that before the next X-Men movie comes out. Anyway… back to this film. Now, the problem with writing a spoiler-free review for this film, is that every website on the planet has already spilled one of the big spoilers of the film. But if you've followed comic books at all in recent years, you already knew the story behind the Winter Soldier. I did when they announced the movie title. For that matter, I figured it was coming when I watched the first Captain America movie. So I wasn't surprised at that. Consequently, that part of the film was rather anti-climactic (although it would be a big reveal for those not in-the-know, and was played up in the film as such). What surprised me though, was everything else in the film. Oh sure, there were a few things that were predictable in a comic-book-tradition sort-of-way, but I was really pleased to not know where the film was going for most of the time. I really didn't see some of the major plot twists coming, and a few scenes just completely came out-of-the-blue. Rarely in movies anymore do I get to enjoy a "WHAT?! NO WAY!!" moment, like a couple in this film. Even when predictable moments did happen, they were handled really well. The movie hit all the right buttons for me. It explored Cap's character well, but also finally, really showed off how formidable of an opponent he is. I really liked Cap when I was into comics, and they managed to capture his personality much better here than in his first movie or The Avengers. This is Captain America. The Falcon makes his debut here and really works well (probably not an easy character to translate to the big screen, but mercifully the red spandex and bird sidekick didn't make the trip), and we get a good dose of the Black Widow too (and a striking contrast between her style and Cap's early in the film). But unmistakably, Cap is the star of the film and the driving force behind the story. The supporting cast (particularly Robert Redford) get their moments to shine, and there are a several cool appearances by other familiar Marvel characters. The action is absolutely first-rate. And it's smart action, too. It has purpose behind it. Unlike, say, The Dark Knight Rises. Frankly, the Captain America of this film would completely embarrass the Batman of that film. I've never really felt like we've seen Batman on screen yet the way that character deserved it (the Joker - yes). Captain America: TWS should serve notice to DC that they've got their work cut out for them with Batman vs. Superman. The special effects are, as seems to be the case for most big-budget films these days, excellent. There are a handful of shots where the CGI stunt doubles don't quite work, but they're few and far-between. I can't really go into much detail about the movie without breaking my no-spoiler policy. Suffice it to say, the movie has pretty-much everything going for it. Subterfuge, action, heart, humor, solid acting, surprises, and some game-changing twists that are going to shake things up in the Marvel movie universe. I'm sitting on about 15 DVR'd episodes of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Guess I'd better start working my way through them. Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a winner. I'm looking forward to the next one. Go see it. And sit through the credits. Cap gets a vibranium-solid 9/10.

Sony tried their best to sell movies on the PSP and the UMD format, but it never took off. I take a look at the pros & cons of the format and try to figure out who the heck would want to collect these?! Does anybody here have a large UMD collection? You can see my collection here if curious: http://jetcitycakes.com/deliciouslibrary/pspumdmovies.html

From the trailers, Gravity looked sort-of interesting. In the way that Moon looked sort-of interesting. I went and saw Moon, and really liked it. A lot of people have been seeing Gravity, and according to Rotten Tomatoes anyway, they've really liked it. So I ponied up twenty bucks, and saw it in IMAX 3D. I figured that way I'd get the best experience out of it. Am I missing something? Okay... the movie looks amazing. Really amazing. The 3D works as well as I've ever seen in a feature film. Sandra Bullock gave an outstanding performance. So much so that I kept forgetting it was Sandra Bullock. That's a good thing. I'm sure she'll win a Golden Globe or something. But I just never really got into the film. I always felt I was watching a film... not taking part in the story. Like those early IMAX films from the 70's. Remember those? Where the sole purpose was to wow you with IMAX? Yeah. That's what I felt Gravity was like. Part of the problem was George Clooney. They should have put someone, anyone else in that role. Because the problem with George Clooney is he's always George Clooney. And that's fine, for fluff like Ocean's 11 (I'll admit... I'll usually watch it or one of its sequels when they're on TV, and frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing them do an Ocean's 14), but for something like this, you want an actor who will disappear into the role. Not call attention to himself. It felt like stunt casting. Putting someone in there to be a box office draw - not because he was a good fit for the role. But Clooney was actually only a small part of the problem I had with the film. The main problem I had with it, was that it was completely ridiculous. Now, it's set up in such a way that you expect it to be somewhat realistic. And they do a pretty good job of making you believe they're in space and zero gravity. Mostly. There are some parts of the film where it doesn't quite work or make sense, but that didn't bother me as much as it has some people (mostly astrophysicists, it would seem). No, it wasn't the physics, but just the absolute preposterousness of the situations in the film, that just build and build past the point of belief. At some point, as Sandra's character was getting bounced around from one precarious situation to another, I started thinking to myself, "Okay... they did that. What's next?" Gravity really felt like a director had discovered a way to make space look really neat, and decided to take elements from 2001: A Space Odyssey and Apollo 13 (both far superior films), and make a demo reel out of it. I just couldn't get into it. Despite the really incredible effects, the effective use of 3D, and Sandra Bullock's performance, the story was just, to put it bluntly, silly. And I got to a certain point in the film, where it didn't matter anymore if she got out of her situation or not, because I was just tired of being spoon-fed yet-another ridiculous, impossible situation, or getting whipped around by the endlessly spinning camera shots. (Or having my eardrums assaulted by the soundtrack. Considering Gravity starts off by pointing out you can't hear anything in space, this is one loud movie.) I would have liked to have liked the film more. I certainly was impressed with how it looked (although the screen in the theater I was at was dirty, so any brightly-lit scenes showed dirt on them as well... I hate movie theaters). And I really liked what Sandra Bullock was able to do with what she was given. But what she was given, was dropped into the middle of a story that just didn't work. I was expecting better. Something with a more engaging, engrossing story. Something more believable. Or at least less ridiculous. This seemed more like a video game. Lara Croft in outer space. Or maybe Indiana Jones and the Nuke-proof-fridge. Gravity gets a 5/10. But it looked great. P.S.

So... it's been confirmed that J.J. Abrams will be directing the next Star Wars film. The director of the new Star Trek films, will be directing the new Star Wars films. Two nerd-worlds collide. I wonder if the internet will survive? "It was as if millions of nerds suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened." Now, I didn't think Star Trek was all that bad when I saw it the first time. Preposterous, yes. Ridiculous, yes. Utterly and hopelessly illogical, yes. But having seen it on TV a few times since then... besides the incessant shaky-cam shots (please... someone put a stop to this), there was something else that really, really bothered me. And the more I watched the film, the more it bothered me. Lens flares. Seriously. Stop with the lens flares J.J. Nearly every... single... shot... in the whole stupid film has a fake lens flare added to it. It looks stupid. Don't believe me? Watch it. Count 'em. I bet you can't. If "Spot the lens flares" were a drinking game, the number of alcohol-poisoning-related-deaths would skyrocket. Now then... where - in real life - do you ever actually see a lens flare? Any guesses? Never. Unless you're looking through a lens. Or you have really bad astigmatism. My guess is that J.J. has bad eyes. If he doesn't see lens flares in a shot, he adds them because he sees them all the time anyway, and thinks they're normal. I was shocked when the trailer for Star Trek Into Dumbness Darkness came out, because it didn't have lens flares every 1/2 second! Did J.J. actually direct the movie? Maybe they just didn't have the time to add them all in yet. I'll still go see the new Star Trek and Star Wars movies. Not because I think they will be good, but just because I go see every Star Trek and Star Wars film that comes out. I'm nerd like dat, yo. But I defy you not to be distracted by lens flares. Or annoyed by shaky-cam shots. Star Trek is already a lost cause. But I had hopes for Star Wars up until today. I'm not looking forward to shaky-cam Star Wars. I'm not looking forward to MTV-editing Star Wars. I'm not looking forward to lens flare Star Wars. I'm not looking forward to red-goo Star Wars. (The Empire's new weapon: a floating blob of red paint - The Death Blob!) I'm not looking forward to makes-no-sense-whatsoever-storylines badly acted by annoying-Gen-Y-actors Star Wars. Although admittedly... that last one pretty-much applies to all of the prequels anyway. Eh... could be worse. Could've been Michael Bay.

Since the Star Trek reboot seems intent on recycling old story elements for their films, I thought I'd help them out with a plot summary for the next one. Okay… it starts out with a group of space hippies who steal Spock's brain. Their society (which is based on ancient Rome) is under the control of an intelligent supercomputer named Landru (who talks like a 1930's gangster), and they need Spock's brain to build a weapon to defeat their enemies (space Nazis) on a neighboring planet. And the weapon they want to build? Why, a Doomsday Machine of course! But not just any Doomsday Machine - this is a giant, intelligent, living Doomsday Machine based on the DNA of a Tribble, so the more planets it eats, the more it reproduces. Which brings us to the inevitable title: Star Trek - The Trouble With Doomsday Machines That's right - this one's a comedy! Audiences will be rolling in the aisles laughing at the wacky hi-jinks of these gigantic, terrible, fuzzy, purring, planet-destroying monstrosities. Special effects the likes of which have never been seen will keep viewers riveted in their seats as they watch entire planets full of billions of people destroyed in excruciating detail with more lens flares than can be counted, and the hilarious antics of Kirk and his crew as they try to stop them. Mr. Spock: "Captain, sensors show this entire solar system has been destroyed. Nothing left but rubble and asteroids." Capt. Kirk: "That's incredible. The star in this system is still intact. Only a Tribble could destroy like that." Mr. Spock: "Nonetheless, Captain, sensors show nothing but debris where we charted seven planets last year." Dr. McCoy: "Do you know what you get if you feed a doomsday machine too much?" Capt. Kirk: "A fat doomsday machine?" Dr. McCoy: "No. You get a whole bunch of hungry little doomsday machines." Capt. Kirk: "Well, Bones, all I can suggest... is you open up a maternity ward. Or a mortuary." Nilz Baris: There must be thousands of them." Capt. Kirk: "Hundreds of thousands." Spock: "1,771,561. That's assuming one doomsday machine, multiplying with an average litter of 10, producing a new generation every 12 hours over a period of three days." Capt. Kirk: "And that's assuming that they got here three days ago." Spock: "And allowing for the amount of planets consumed and the relative populations of them." [Kirk takes a tray out of a food dispenser. Food and cup are covered with debris and body parts from decimated planets] Capt. Kirk: "My chicken sandwich and coffee. This is my chicken sandwich and coffee!" Spock: "Fascinating." Dr. McCoy: [enters after Kirk gets covered with falling debris and body parts from decimated planets] "Jim! I think I've got it. All we have to do is quit feeding them. We quit feeding them, they stop breeding!" Capt. Kirk: "Now he tells me." As the entire galaxy is filled with Doomsday Machines and the universe is about to come to an end, Kirk and crew discover the Guardian of Forever, which enables them to travel back through time to put a stop to it before it starts. They find a woman (oddly enough, still played by Joan Collins) responsible for whatever caused society to need to build Landru in the first place and Kirk falls in love with her. Just as they're all about to be executed by Klingons, she's attacked and killed by a Mugato (look it up), and since the Doomsday Machine was now never built in the first place, Spock's brain was never stolen, and Kirk's crew never traveled back in time, they all suddenly find themselves back on board the Enterprise completely unaware that anything ever happened. Except for the fact... ... that they're now in the Mirror Universe! Cue the fourth movie: Star Trek - All of our Yesterdays' Tomorrows Dear Paramount, You're welcome.

How do you write a spoiler-free review about a movie that is completely predictable and exactly what you expect it to be? Beats me, but I'll give it a shot. Pacific Rim is live-action anime. If you're at all familiar with anime, you'll know exactly where this movie is going at every turn. But really, that's the whole point. It's supposed to be an homage, tribute, rip-off or love letter to anime. More to the point, if you don't get anime, you probably aren't going to get this film either. All of the clichéd characters are present - the hero with a troubled past (Matt Damon Charlie Hunnam), the tough-but-cute girl with a troubled past (Winona Ryder Rinko Kikuchi), the gruff-on-the-outside but heart-of-gold commanding officer (Louis Gossett, Jr. Idris Elba), the egotistical rival (Val Kilmer Robert Kazinsky), the goofy comic-relief scientist (Sam Rockwell Charlie Day), the cartoonish tough-guy (Ron Perlman Ron Perlman) and so on. The movie is about humans using giant robots to fight giant monsters. What more do you need to know? It's Godilla meets Robotech plus Independence Day. The characters are two-dimensional, the dialogue silly (when it's not stilted), and the whole movie is overblown, illogical and completely, totally ridiculous. It's also the most fun I've had at the movies this summer, precisely because of all of those things. Pacific Rim has no pretentions of being anything other than what it is. It's a big, epic, fun, silly popcorn movie, with absolutely first-rate special effects, great action (Michael Bay should take notes - this is how The Transformers should have been made), and awesome tongue-in-cheek giant-robots-vs.-monsters anime moments that deliver exactly what they should, when they should. I'd tell you more, but that would require invoking spoilers. Still, if you need some convincing to go see it... how about: Pacific Rim is certainly light on plot, script, and acting (the actors frequently slip in and out of heavy Australian accents), but the movie revels in what it is. It delivers what it promises, without wasting 3/4 of the movie on some boring set-up. It takes just a brief couple of minutes at the beginning to get all of the backstory out of the way, and then drops you right into the action. If you like anime, or giant robots, or special effects epics, or just big, stupid, fun movies, check it out. With an extra-large, greasy bucket of popcorn. Pacific Rim gets an 8/10.

Well, I'll admit I wasn't expecting much from Monsters University. I thought the original Monsters Inc. was a pretty-good movie, but not among Pixar's best. Since I'd first heard about Monsters U, it always struck me as being the sequel (or prequel) nobody asked for. Also, it's been pretty frustrating watching Pixar deteriorate into a sequel machine. Toy Story 3, Cars 2, Monsters U... 3 of their last 4 films were sequels. 4 out of 5 if you count Planes (which was actually made by Disney Toons, but it's still a spin-off of a Pixar movie). That said, I have to admit I enjoyed Monsters U. If anything, I think it's a better film than Monsters Inc. Monsters U follows the story of how Mike and Sully first met (although the story is more about Mike), and their efforts to become Scaring Majors in college. What follows is a Pixar version of a typical college comedy, albeit a very sanitized one. In fact, if I had a complaint about the film, is that it felt too sanitized. While there are some funny moments (and jabs at the usual college stereotypes), the movie always plays it very safe. There's nary a hint of drinking, carousing, or other decidedly non-G-rated shenanigans of most college movies. Even the stereotypes (jocks, cheerleaders, goths, frat boys) are all somewhat generic. There are very few characters that really stand out, and most are there merely to service the story. Admittedly, they're not the point of the movie - the relationship of Mike and Sully is - but I would've liked to have seen them take more chances and push things a little further. I hate to use the word "edgy", but certainly a more biting satire would have been in order. Or a more pointed parody. What's there is a good start, but I kept wondering how much more funny it could've been if they weren't trying to reign in their humor and make it family-friendly. (I should note that I'm all for family-friendly films. But a film about college that gets too sanitized just lacks honesty. I went to three colleges and have worked at one for many years. College is anything but sanitized.) Despite that, the plot (while predictable) works well, as typical college movie clichés are nicely reworked to fit within the Monsters world. The story points make sense and the whole concept of a Monsters University works within the context of the film and justifies the story. I was worried this was just an idea thrown together to justify making a sequel (or prequel, in this case), but the story and in particular the character developments are strong enough in their own right. And while most of the story falls along predictable lines (see also: Midnight Madness), in the third act the movie takes a turn which really surprised me and took things in a (literally) unexpected direction. I thought it was the best part of the film. While a lot of the ancillary characters are generic, there are a few standouts among the supporting cast. Art (one of their fraternity brothers) is particularly funny, as is Ms. Squibbles (the mother of one of their other frat brothers). Also, Dean Hardscrabble is amazing - one of Pixar's better characters and easily one of the best from the Monsters movies. Also, Claire (the president of the Greek Council), has a great design which instantly conveys her personality. Less like "let's design a monster" and more of a caricature. I wish they'd pushed some of the other character designs in that direction. Billy Crystal is really the heart and soul of the movie though. He brings a great performance to Mike Wazowski, and there are some genuinely heartwarming as well as really funny moments from him. I do have one big gripe with the film though. And I don't know if they did this just to throw the audience a curveball, or they thought it was "realistic" or just their best solution. But the moral of the story seems to be, And while I doubt that was their intent, that's certainly how it came across to me. Anyway, Monsters University was a pretty good movie overall. It was a fun take on college comedies (if not satirical enough for my tastes), had some nice nods to Monsters Inc. for fans of that movie, yet it wasn't just a rehash of it. There were some good character moments, and I liked seeing where these characters came from. If anything, they were more likable here than in Monsters Inc., and there were enough funny moments to keep me entertained. I saw Monsters U in 3D, which worked very well. Movies rendered as 3D to begin with look far better than converted ones. That said, I don't think it really added anything to it either. I'd give Monsters University a 6.9/10. (The sad thing is, their fictional campus has a better website than the one for the college I work for. ) The new Pixar short that preceded it - The Blue Umbrella - was decent enough, but not one of their better efforts. The story felt an awful lot like Disney's Paperman, or something I'd see from students where I work (and that's not a jab at the students, but I expect a different level of storytelling from Pixar).

Yep. Sitting in a theater again, waiting for a movie to start. But this is one I really have no expectations for, one way or the other. I'll admit I didn't have high hopes when I first heard they were rebooting the Superman movies, since after all - it's Superman. How much can you really do with it? Besides, DC's track record for movies is generally pretty bad. But some of the trailers looked pretty good. So in just a few minutes here, I guess I'll find out. The theater is mostly empty though, save for a handful of late stragglers coming in. But then, it's an 11:30pm showing, and most crowds will probably be at World War Z tonight. Anyway, time to go. See you in... wait... this movie is 2 hours and 33 minutes?!? (2 hours, 33 minutes, and about 100 movie trailers later...) Okay... I'm going to slightly break my no-spoiler rule, but only in referring to common knowledge about Superman's established backstory that's repeated in the film. So if you're not up on Superman at all, consider yourself warned. Otherwise, I'll be as vague as ever. In a nutshell, if it was about an hour shorter it'd probably be a really good movie. Part of the problem, is that it spends entirely too much time on Krypton setting up the backstory. Krypton is well-established in the movie to be a space-faring race, so it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that everyone on the planet is somehow "doomed". Yes, Superman is an alien, from an alien world, with advanced technology, and I get all of that. But it spent so much time on that, it felt more like a sci-fi movie than a superhero one. At least until we finally got to Earth. Admittedly, some of what they (over) explained about Krypton made sense much, much later in the film (particularly in regards to General Zod), but it still could've been shorter. A lot shorter. That said, once they did get to Earth, I thought the way they covered Superman/Kal-El/Clark's early years was interesting. Instead of being strictly linear, they jumped around a bit to different times of his life, and wove it into the current storyline that was happening. While it could get a little confusing, for the most part it worked well. From a plot standpoint, it's essentially combining parts of the first two Christopher Reeve Superman films. Because of that, and that Superman's all-too-familiar origin is being retold for the billionth time, the movie can't help but feel somewhat derivative. They manage to take the film in some new directions which helps it to feel fresher than the franchise has in a very long time, but the sci-fi elements often felt out-of-place. Also, the ease with which the people of Earth just sort of accepted everything that was going on didn't seem very well grounded to me. There are the typical plot holes in the film, which I suppose is par for the course in superhero films, but it's still disappointing. For example, how did Superman get his costume? We see him getting it, but it shouldn't have been there, unless it was made right there and then, and there was no indication of that. And why blue when every other Kryptonian wore black? Why the red cape? It wasn't explained at all. Just presented. Boom. Here you go - blue rubber tights. Other issues which are typical to Superman stories include why did the villains take Lois Lane to their lair? They didn't need her there (and of course, the typical shenanigans ensue). And if Superman's powers came from years of absorbing our sun's radiation, how could he completely lose those powers in mere seconds, and regain them just as fast? And the list goes on. The biggest problem with Superman though is that he's effectively indestructible. Sure, you see him grunting and straining at times, but you never really feel he's in danger. Everyone around him is though, and I guess that's what his real weakness is. He's a bull in a china shop, fighting other bulls. Because of his powers, the filmmakers feel they have to make the stakes ridiculously high in order for him to be truly heroic. That's too bad, because before he becomes Superman, we see him doing heroic things on a much more human level, and it's far more interesting. I would've rather seen more of that in the movie, and less of the "save the world" level stuff. That said, despite the film's problems, I have to admit that overall I liked it. There are two reasons for this: First, the cast is excellent. Henry Cavill makes for a genuinely likable Superman. Not an easy task (just ask Brandon Routh). Amy Adams makes a good Lois Lane, and the relationship between the two of them is the smartest approach I can recall seeing with those two characters. Michael Shannon is excellent as General Zod, and even manages to bring a certain empathy to the character. Kevin Costner and Diane Lane are also first-rate as the Kents. Less successful is Russell Crowe as Jor-El, but part of that may be because he's playing a hologram throughout a good chunk of the film (like Marlon Brando did). The second reason I liked it is because of the fight scenes. Finally - it felt like I was really watching Superman in a super fight. The destruction was ridiculous and spectacular and everything a comic book fight should be. It reminded me very much of Eclipse's one-shot Destroy!! in which two Superman-like characters have a 30-page brawl and take out half of Manhattan in the process. Of course this brings us back to the problem that now that we know what punishment Superman is capable of taking, what do they do to ramp it up in the next film? Maybe they shouldn't have started out with the bar so high in this film. In the end, I'd have to call this a successful reboot. They've found a good actor in Henry Cavill to carry the franchise forward. He's his own version of Superman while still being faithful to the character, he's likable, believable, and has genuine charisma. He also has (potentially) good chemistry with Amy Adams. The real problem is what challenge to give him next? I think they should scale it back. Find something more human for him to do. Not something that requires invulnerability and Earth-shattering strength, but maybe making it more about being in the right place, at the right time, doing the right thing. More Man than Super. What helps this film work is we like the guy before he ever puts the blue rubber tights on. Man of Steel gets DC back on track after the disastrous Green Lantern and mediocre-at-best Dark Knight Rises, and gets a 7/10. (I should point out that Man of Steel apparently borrows heavily from John Byrne's 1986 The Man of Steel DC Comic mini-series, but since it's been 27 years since I've read it, I've largely forgotten it and therefore can't really make any comparisons.)

To recap the first film: http://youtu.be/OTfBH-XFdSc Okay, so with that out of the way, yet again I find myself sitting in a theater, waiting for a movie to start. In this case Star Trek Into Darkness, which I guess is supposed to be read as a sentence. So we're trekking, into darkness. Or something. Anyway, since I effectively "trekked" to the theater, and am sitting in relative darkness, the title seems somewhat apropos. Unlike Iron Man 3, where we were hustled into the theater mere moments from the start of the movie trailers, I've got a good 20 minutes to kill. Certainly, this is due to not being here on the movie's opening night. I decided after going through that once this summer, not to do it again. At the moment, there are only a few people in here, no doubt due in large part to Fast & Furious 6 opening tonight in pretty-much every other screen here, and mercifully keeping most of that particular age demographic occupied elsewhere. It's all about planning ahead. 10 minutes to go. They're running commercials and behind-the-scenes featurettes for things I have no interest in. Speaking of things I have no interest in, I was debating seeing STID in the first place, since I don't really consider this (or the previous film) to be true Star Trek. It's more like a really high budget fan film. Lots of effort put into sets, costumes and effects, but none of it looks quite right, and none of the people dressed up in the costumes know how to act. The whole time, you're conciously aware you're not watching William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy, but pale, annoying imitations aimed solely at trying to draw in new audiences who have the attention span of a gnat and and are solely interested in loud noises and flashing lights, and not in characters or story. Anyway, time for the trailers. (One movie later...) The theater filled out nicely for the movie. Not overcrowded, but not so empty that it felt like I was watching the film by myself. Unfortunately, there were a few idiots "vaping" down front. Newsflash for the brilliant people who think this is okay in a movie theater: it may not stink like cigarette smoke, but it still rises up into the air and makes for a really annoying visual distraction. Leave your huffing at home. Incidentally... does anyone else think this guy is the biggest poseur on the entire planet? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi0bYeFbN4E I mean c'mon... between the slow-motion and his scraggily Shaggy beard? (Look... either grow a real one out, or shave the stupid thing off.) Sorry. Easily distracted. Right, so onto the movie itself. Now, I detest spoilers, so I try to avoid reading them, and try to avoid writing them. I should warn you though, that spoilers for this film are ridiculously easy to run across. I found one on a movie trailer site that simply listed the cast. So if you're planning on seeing this, and don't want it spoiled, just avoid everything. Writing a review of this movie is going to be hard to do without invoking spoilers. But I'll give you my overall impressions of it, and see how it goes. First, this is a better movie than the last Star Trek. Much better. It seems more cohesive, the cast seems to be more comfortable with their characters (less forced), and it doesn't have a completely ridiculous plot or anything as ludicrously stupid as the red gravity goo. And there are fewer lens flares, too. A lot fewer. But they're still there. They just seemed to be used at more strategic moments, rather than in every single shot. But still, when they do show up, they're annoying. Memo to J.J.: try leaving them out of your next film entirely. Just to see if you can do it. It's like farting in an elevator. You don't really have to, right? I mean, you can exercise some self-control, and people around you will be happier for it. Zachary Quinto is doing a better job as Spock. Respectable even. And the guy playing McCoy has a few moments, although he's still largely a caricature of DeForest Kelley. And the guy playing Scotty does a little better, but he's still too much comic relief for my tastes, as is the guy playing Chwyekyoyv (aka "No One's Favorite" in the above trailer). As an aside - in the original Star Trek, Walter Koenig was hired as a counterpoint to the Monkees' Davy Jones, so shouldn't J.J. have hired a Justin Bieber lookalike to play this Chekov? Just wondering. The main problem with the cast is that Chris Pine is just not a very likable Kirk. He simply lacks charisma. He has a few decent moments in the film, but mostly it just comes off really flat and superficial. And his eyebrows are way too distracting. Dude... pluck those suckers. It looks like you're wearing a couple of cats up there or something. That aside, I just had a hard time believing anybody else in the movie really liked him, or that he was actually competent at what he was doing. I don't know what percentage of that is bad writing, bad casting, bad acting, or bad directing. Now then, onto the villain. The basic premise is there's a bad guy, who does bad things, and Kirk and crew have to go and get him. So a ruckus ensues. And the guy playing the villain does a passable job at it. Unfortunately, by and large, he is also doing a passive job at it. There's a pretty good chunk of the film where he's just... sitting. When he does act, he's formidable. But there is a problem with him, and it's the main problem with this movie, and the rebooted series in general. Inevitable comparisons. Consider this - this version of Star Trek still takes place in the same universe as the original series. And timeline-wise, just before it (look it up). Kirk, the Enterprise, the crew - all still at the start of their careers. The events in the previous movie have altered the timeline somewhat, but it's still the same universe. So some of the other things that existed in the other timeline would, logically, be here as well. Romulans, as we saw in the last movie, for example. It's not a completely different universe. So comparisons are inevitable. Especially with this movie, because it's completely derivative. And for those of us knowing what it's derivative of, we can't help but think, "This is pretty good, but it was so much better in the original." Yes, I'm well aware that this movie is targeted to people who may have never seen Star Trek, or certainly aren't as steeped in it as my generation. I heard people in the theater (and afterwards) talking about this very thing, as it relates to this film. Or more to the point, what it's derivative of. Does it make sense that they're effectively covering existing ground in an altered way? Of course. And the movie works, and is entertaining in its own right, if you can divorce yourself from any pre-existing biases of Star Trek you may have. But if you can't, and there were numerous points where for me it was impossible, it's all-too-self-conscious and self-referential. Which is too bad. Because there's some good action to be had in the film. Taken entirely on its own, it's not a bad story either. It's a pretty entertaining romp. But we've been here before, and when I'm pulled out of the movie to think about something else because of the movie, then I don't think that's good movie making. Also, it's not hard at all to predict where they're going in the movie. They telegraph some stuff way in advance, and you're just basically waiting for them to get on with it. There are also some less significant issues I have with the movie, that are basically leftover from the previous movie. First of all - apparently nobody in Star Fleet really cares who is in command of what, or who sneaks on board a ship and is suddenly given credibility and authority without so much as raising an eyebrow over it (get it?). It's a very poorly run organization, with impossibly bad security, really stupid policies, and zero accountability. Second - there are just too many easy outs. Convenient events that propel the story where you already know it needs to go. Don't treat the audience like we're that stupid, okay? If someone needs to be somewhere, the whole "oh we're sending them somewhere else... now we're not!" fake-out is really amateurish. Come up with something better. Finally - just how big is the Enterprise now, anyway? The interiors seem impossibly huge. Tardis-huge. Has anyone mapped out a cutaway of that thing yet? All of that may sound as if I didn't like it, but I enjoyed it enough to justify having gone to see it. It was a fair-enough summer popcorn movie. For the series, it's a step in the right direction, but they really, really need to carve out their own path from here on out. Don't go back over old ground anymore. Take ownership of the series if you're going to continue with it. And Chris... tweezers. Look into it. Star Trek Into Darkness gets a 6.5/10.

When Iron Man 2 came out, for whatever reason, I just didn't have any interest in seeing it in the theater. Turns out, when I did watch it on Blu-ray, I liked it well enough to wish I'd gone and seen it on the big screen. So with Iron Man 3, I decided to go see it in the theater. Some movies, you just gotta. Especially after The Avengers. And the trailers for Iron Man 3 looked pretty good. I rarely go opening night to blockbusters, since the theaters are usually stupid-crazy-crowded. But I figured I'd go to a 12:30 AM, non-3D screening, and it probably wouldn't be too bad. After all, it's a Thursday night, and probably not everyone is used to staying up until 3 or 4 AM, like I've been doing the last week. Which reminds me, you know the song "25 or 6 to 4"? That's what it's about. Writing a song at 25 or 26 to 4 in the morning. Who knew, right? Where was I? Oh, right. Last week. My work schedule went like this: Monday - 16 hours Tuesday - 13 hours Wednesday - 17 hours Thursday - 10 hours (short day!) Friday - 14 hours Saturday - 16 hours And I stopped in on Sunday for an hour, just for good measure. That all has to do with this annual fun-fest. Which I'll blog about after Wednesday. But I digress. Anyway, long story short, opening night, 12:30 AM, not an original idea. The place was packed. I was lucky to get a decent seat. And I felt really, really old, too. Someone (probably high school or college age - which was 99% of the audience - don't they have school tomorrow? ) asked me if I'd collected comics "back in the good ol' days". Mercy. And he wasn't being smart-alecky either. I guess I'm just that old now. Seriously. The 80's was 30 years ago. I collected comic books back then, and that was as long ago from now, as that was from the end of the Golden Age, fer cryin' out loud. I'm lucky I didn't need an ear trumpet to watch the movie. Oh right, the movie. To cut to the chase, it wasn't as good as Iron Man, but it was better than Iron Man 2. A little. Maybe. In some regards, it's more similar to Iron Man since a lot of the movie is about Tony Stark, rather than being necessarily about him as Iron Man (although they're one and the same, and in fact the movie does deal with that, but... you know what I mean). And given that Robert Downey, Jr., is in fine form in the film, that's a good thing. It would really be hard for them to find someone else to play Stark, if or when Downey decides to retire from the role. Much in the same way that it would be ridiculous for anyone to try replacing, say, William Shatner as Captain Kirk. Yeah, they showed the Star Trek Into Darkness trailer. And Superman. And Wolverine. And 10 or 30 others. No Thor 2 though. Go figure. Marvel and all that. So, the movie. Sorry. Easily distracted. The movie starts off well with a good setup, and a villain (The Mandarin) played with by Ben Kingsley. The problem is, the plot deals with acts of terrorism very similar to the recent attacks in Boston. Of course the movie was written, shot, and scheduled for release months ago, so it's hardly the fault of the filmmakers. It's just a coincidence that brings some very strong, very recent emotions unexpectedly back to the surface, and will likely affect how you perceive at least part of the movie. I know it did for me. That being the case, there are still some very cool action set pieces throughout the movie, some funny moments (particularly with Downey), and lots of cool gadgetry. Some of the better scenes just involve Tony Stark, being his resourceful self. He's not just a guy in a suit. He's formidable with pretty-much anything at his disposal. But of course, the suits are cool. I do have one major gripe about the film. Well, two. But to describe them adequately would ruin the whole "Spoiler-free" title. So let's see if I can dance around them a little bit. I'll still use Spoiler tags, just in case. Please respond in the comments with Spoiler tags if needed, too. The first, and most major one, The second just seemed a bit too obvious. Oh, and a few things just really didn't make any sense. But I guess if you're expecting logic from a comic book movie, then you're watching the wrong movie. There were some aspects of the film I felt were a little predictable, some of that certainly owing to the trailers that are out there. Also, I felt that some of the editing was poor, resulting in scenes where I wasn't quite sure exactly what happened, or how something happened, or why. I'm sure on a second or third viewing I'd get it. But a good editor will make sure the audience gets it the first time through. (Again - maybe I'm just old.) All in all though, the movie was a good action romp. Good acting. Good effects. The audience liked it well enough, although I can't say they were cheering wildly or anything like that. Maybe it was the late hour. Still, overall it was a good popcorn flick. What really makes the film work, as with the previous two (and let's face it, a large part of The Avengers) is Robert Downey, Jr. He shines in the film. He brings a really likable quality to Tony Stark, neuroses and all, and he's surrounded by a good (and at times exceptional) supporting cast. Particularly with a precocious kid (Ty Simpkins) that Tony Stark befriends. So I'll give Iron Man 3 a 7.8/10. Hmm... I guess that's a lower score than I gave Iron Man 2. Well, maybe this will hold up better when it gets re-run on TV. It certainly hasn't hurt Iron Man 2 any. And yes... stay through the end credits.