Search the Community

Wow... the last Spoiler-free review I posted was waaaaay back in October 2020! Of course 2020 was during the pandemic, so the only movies I was watching then were on home video. I have been back to the theater to see movies since then, but frankly, none of them were really worth reviewing. Actually, I don't even remember most of what I saw now. Maybe I'll do a Spoiler-free catch-up edition, with just short one or two sentence reviews and a score for each movie. (More to warn people away from seeing them, than anything else.) I had intended to write up reviews for some of them, but just wasn't inclined to do so. I'm not all that inclined to write much about Godzilla Minus One, either. Except this: Go see it. It's awesome. This movie isn't part of the recent slog of Legendary Pictures' "Monsterverse" films featuring Godzilla, King Kong and so on. This is by Toho - the company that originated Godzilla in the first place. It was filmed in Japan, the dialogue is Japanese with English subtitles, it takes place in a devastated, war-torn Japan just after World War II, had a budget of less than $15 million, and is awesome. No, I didn't drop a zero there. $15 million. Not $150 million. And even though at times the visual effects belie the film's incredibly tiny budget, it just doesn't matter. The story and the characters are deeply compelling. Everything else is secondary. This is how movies should be. If you're engrossed in the story and care about the characters, the trappings of the film itself don't matter. You're far more likely to just enjoy the film for what it is. And this isn't a knock against the movie's visual effects at all. They serve the story perfectly. I think many big budget films (or TV series) get knocked for subpar special effects because the audiences get so bored, there's nothing left to do but look at the effects and pick them apart. The best blockbuster films were great not because of their effects, but because of their characters. Movie studios have totally lost sight of that, and have turned movies into just being excuses for spectacle. That said, Godzilla Minus One certainly has the requisite scenes of Godzilla wreaking havoc. But the stakes are personal. They're emotional. You care about the people in his path of destruction and what happens to them. The theater I went to last night was pretty packed, and at times the entire audience was absolutely silent, because they were completely captivated by the human story playing out on the screen in front of them. Godzilla Minus One has heart. The actors, notably Ryunosuke Kamiki as Kōichi Shikishima, are wonderfully cast and a joy to watch. I was rooting for them throughout this film. Not to just defeat Godzilla, but to triumph over their own personal wars as well. To just live. Go see it. It's awesome. Godzilla Minus One gets a 10/10.

After decades of searching I was able to find a movie that I saw on late night television where I think I saw an Atari 400 (it really looks more like an apple2), but I remember the basic code and the joystick, in addition to the semi-arid geography, a bicycle and a remote control (RC) helicopter. It has some Atari basic code, using POKE 53248 More screenshots: http://manillismo.blogspot.com/2022/07/ifo-identified-flying-object-ovi-objeto.html

Okay... let's try this again. After my last attempt to see Avengers: Age of Ultron, I was so fed-up with going to the movies, I really had no interest in trying again. But here I am, in a different multiplex, ten minutes away from my second attempt. I'm not holding out much hope, since I've since read several articles that state that movie theater chains intentionally tell their employees not to correctly change over their projectors from 3D to 2D, since it costs time and money and they don't want to train people to do it right. I guess I'll find out soon enough. When I update this entry after the movie, I'll post some info about the other theater's response, and my response to them. Time now to post this and shut off my iPhone. Wish me luck! (One movie later...) If you recall from last time, I stopped short of reviewing Avengers: Age of Ultron because the projection was so dim, I literally couldn't see a lot of what was going on. I was distracted through the whole movie by how dark the picture was, as well as how low the volume was (I couldn't hear a lot of the dialog). I wrote a complaint to the movie chain, who e-mailed an apology and offered free passes, and then put the theater manager in touch with me, who also apologized and similarly offered me free passes. I turned them both down. My response to them was that I wasn't interested in free passes, but rather some assurance that I was going to be able to see movies presented properly. I (admittedly sarcastically) asked Regal if they could recommend another theater, to which they replied to me to type in my zip code on Regal's website, which would find the next nearest Regal theater. Not helpful. The theater manager said that their technical support people would be investigating what had happened, and I responded that I'd like to hear the results of that investigation. However, I already knew the issue. I linked to a couple of articles last time, but this one is better still - from the Boston Globe. This succinctly describes the problem with theater chains using Sony 4K digital projectors for both 3D and 2D screenings, without changing the setup between the two. It diminishes the brightness of 2D screenings by half, or worse. According to the Globe (and other articles), some theater chains are intentionally choosing not to change out their lenses, despite knowing the negative effect this is going to have on the projection. And yes - they do know. It would be impossible to be even remotely associated with running a movie theater (much less a chain of them) without understanding the technology behind them. They're just choosing to ignore it, because in the end, they simply don't care. And apparently, neither do audiences. If the audiences complained enough, or stopped going, things would have to change. But most audiences don't notice, because they don't know what they're looking at. They're there to watch a movie - not critically analyze it. If it's dark, they probably just chalk it up to "being at the movies", as opposed to say, watching the movie on Netflix on an iPad. By going to a different theater (although unfortunately, still part of the Regal monopoly) and choosing a screen that had been running 2D all day, I had hoped that maybe I'd luck out and get a properly set up projector. No such luck. They were still running it with the 3D lens in place. How do I know? Well, from the Boston Globe article, "If you see two beams of light, one stacked on top of the other, thats a Sony with the 3-D lens still in place." In fact, I could clearly see the 3D lens on the projector after the lights came up after the movie. It's pretty unmistakable. The 3D lens looks nothing like the 2D lens. So... how hard is it to change the lenses? Well, take a look for yourself. It takes about 6 1/2 minutes. And this is something that - at most - might have to be done once per day. And that's pretty unlikely since most theaters aren't going to be changing between 2D and 3D screenings during the day. Maybe on the weekend when a big movie is opening. It's not rocket science. But theater chains don't want to do it. They deem it unnecessary, because people aren't complaining. But look at it this way - if the concession stand employees were spitting in everyone's Cokes, but nobody complained because they didn't know, would that make it okay? (For all I know, maybe that's a policy of the Regal chain, too.) I will say this - the projection was marginally better than the other theater. Was it good? No. But it was at least tolerable. However, the incessant buzzing in the sound system was not. So I'll be writing Regal again. And unless I find another theater to go to, this will be my last movie review. I'm done. I was planning to see quite a few movies this year, too. Here are the ones I won't be seeing now: Mad Max: Fury Road Tomorrowland Jurassic Park Terminator Genisys Inside Out (we had a sneak preview of this at work - but I was too wiped out from our end-of-year crunch to go, now I wish I had) Ant Man Fantastic Four (admittedly - I probably would've skipped this one anyway) Spectre The Good Dinosaur Star Wars: The Force Awakens Too bad. I bet at least two or three of those would have been pretty good. But man... I'm going to be saving a truckload of money! So then... onto the review itself. And I will endeavor to separate my viewing experience, from the movie itself. From the opening action sequence of the film, Age of Ultron seemed muddled. Over-busy. Jumbled. The whole opening was full of quick quips and all-too-fast cuts, with nobody getting any real focus. And really this sums up a lot of the movie for me as well. It's unfocused. The first Avengers movie worked well because there were effectively only five Avengers: Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, Hulk and the Black Widow. Hawkeye spent most of the film as a brainwashed baddie. There was enough screen time to go around, and give everyone their own moments to shine. Now though, you have all five of those Avengers, plus Hawkeye, plus Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch, plus the Vision, plus various other characters (several villains besides Ultron, and a few other superhero cameos) and suddenly the movie is incredibly crowded. And all of the character moments seemed forced, too. A sort-of romance blooming out of nowhere, backstory/flashback/nightmare dream sequences that are so shallow as to give us no insight into any of the characters, a hidden double-life, the sudden (and completely inexplicable) re-emergence of a significant plot element, the sudden (and completely inexplicable) change of characters from vengeful villains to selfless heroes, forced bickering and conflicts, out-of-character behavior, and so forth. It all seemed very artificial, and did nothing to endear these characters to me. I had a hard time really caring about them, or what happened to them. And these are all characters that, in other films, I really like. I should point out that it's not that they're particularly unlikeable, but Age of Ultron does nothing to help these characters grow. Even the worst of the Iron Man films at least moved Tony Stark forward in some way. And for my money, Captain America: The Winter Soldier is now the gold standard for what a character-driven superhero movie should be. Age of Ultron is a step backwards. They gave Hawkeye some better scenes this time around, but they almost seemed to be there to make up for him being a zombie for most of the previous movie. Then, there's the villain. Marvel paid for James Spader, so they wanted to use James Spader. I guess they wanted Ultron to be conflicted, emotional, flawed and human. But he was too human. He was too... odd. Too funny. His face was too expressive. So expressive, it became distracting. Let me spell this out for you Marvel: Ultron is a ROBOT. For comparison, how much personality does C-3PO manage to convey without being able to even blink? Ultron's voice, at times, just wasn't robotic enough. Or angry enough. There was no menace to it. It should have sounded more like a malfunctioning computer... metallic dementia tinged with rage, like in Colossus: The Forbin Project. Now that was a scary computer. Also, I had trouble buying into Ultron's motivation, anger, or ultimate plan (which was patently ridiculous - something which may work in a comic book, but not in a comic book movie). And speaking of the movie feeling crowded... how did Ultron (or his creators) ever find enough time to make so many copies of him? I suppose maybe his copies were making copies, but it would have been nice if it were better explained. Frankly, there are plot holes big enough to drive a truck through. Massive, gaping plot holes. The first Avengers movie isn't exactly a pantheon of logic, but at least Loki's motives were clear, and he was incredibly entertaining to watch. Here, Ultron is just a big, goofy disappointment. And one that is apparently very easy to repeatedly destroy, regardless of whatever super powers (or mildly enhanced abilities) you happen to have. Seriously... how does Quicksilver manage to destroy big, metal robots just by punching them, without seriously hurting himself? There was one character who came out of the movie working very well indeed - and that was the Vision. He's kind of a weird character in the comics, and one which I wasn't sure would work in a movie, but he worked incredibly well. He had some of the better moments in the film, although his powers were largely skimmed over, so if you blinked, you wouldn't really know what he was really capable of doing. They also glossed over the Scarlet Witch's abilities, just chalking them up to being "weird". I guess a picture is supposed to be worth a thousand words, but a few more words wouldn't have hurt. Better still, a few less characters wouldn't have hurt. I suppose some people are lamenting over Joss Whedon being done with making Avengers movies now, but I'm not. Frankly, I think he bit off more than he could chew with this one. Too many characters, and not enough time spent to really develop them. The major threat was hokey, the film was cluttered, the action sequences were noisy and unfocused... it just wasn't up to the standard the first film set. By the time the next Avengers films come out, I wonder if the Marvel Cinematic Universe will be so cluttered that this will become the norm? I'm already worried that Captain America: Civil War may tread that ground, since reportedly there will be quite a few characters appearing in that film. If the last Cap film proved anything, it's that sometimes smaller is better. (Smaller in terms of the character focus - the plot ramifications of course were huge.) That said, there were some great moments in the film. The Hulk vs. Hulkbuster fight was particularly fun (despite most of it being spoiled in trailers and commercials), although it was apparently shot for a different aspect ratio than what I saw it in, because the action was cropped in so tight, it made it difficult to see what was happening at times. This happened throughout the film, too. Maybe the IMAX release was better. Can't blame the theater for that one though... that's just bad cinematography. In the end, Avengers: Age of Ultron just can't live up to its predecessor. Or really, most of its predecessors. It's not that it's bad, but it's not on the same level as Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Or Guardians of the Galaxy. Or The Avengers. Or Iron Man. With this one, Marvel stumbles a bit. But with $1.2 billion in box office revenue, they probably don't care. And at least it's not a DC movie. Avengers: Age of Ultron gets a 7.2/10. (But only because I gave Man of Steel a 7, otherwise it'd be closer to a 6.

Yes, there's a new Star Wars Holiday Special. The most infamous piece of Star Wars lore returns to Disney+, but this time in LEGO form (and yes... LEGO is supposed to be all caps). If you're unaware of the first Star Wars Holiday Special... well, I just don't know how to describe it. It's unbelievable in its awfulness. Imagine some weird, unfunny mash-up of the worst 70's variety show you've ever seen, featuring has-been TV comedians doing painfully unfunny "comedy" sketches, a couple of trippy musical numbers, a cartoon, and mortifyingly embarrassing cameos by the Star Wars cast (with Carrie Fisher singing) and... well, you're not even scratching the surface. This is the train wreck of train wrecks. This is the train wreck that other train wrecks slow down to look at in astonishment, then quickly turn away from because it's so bad. I watched this as a kid when it first aired. It was the first new Star Wars anything after the original movie, while we were all eagerly waiting for what seemed like an eternity for The Empire Strikes Back. There was no home video. No cable. No way to see Star Wars since it had left the theaters. So of course anticipation for the special was high. But in the end, it was a train wreck. It was a train wreck, inside of a train wreck, that was happening on top of another train wreck. It didn't matter that it was Star Wars. Or that I was a kid at the time. I knew awful when I saw it. The cartoon was okay though. Weird looking animation, but still, it was kind of cool. Maybe because it was the only part that wasn't irredeemably awful. It also introduced Boba Fett who didn't once fall into a pit. So good for him! Yay, Boba! But the rest of that mess was genuinely unwatchable. Time for an anecdote! Some years back, I got a bootleg copy of the special on DVD from a sketchy internet site (before it was readily available on YouTube). For our Christmas/Holiday Party at the college where I work, we hosted a screening of it on the big projection system in one of our multipurpose rooms. We have a lot of Star Wars nerds there, and the screening started out with a pretty good crowd, since few had ever seen it. Well, that didn't last too long. The further we got into it, the more people left. Finally, near the end of it, we were down to maybe three or four people, most of whom were asleep on the floor by that point. One of them walked towards the door and we told him, "Don't leave yet - Carrie Fisher is about to sing!" We kidded him about not being a hardcore fan, at which point he rolled up his sleeves to show an Imperial tattoo on one arm, and a Rebel tattoo on the other, and then he said, "I'm a huge Star Wars fan... but I just can't take it anymore!" and left. What I'm getting at here, is if you've never seen it, don't. It's just not worth the two hours* of your life you'll never get back. George Lucas disavowed the Holiday Special. Rumor had it that he was actively trying to track down and destroy every copy of it. It has never, and will never be officially released. Yet now - there's a new one. A LEGO one. But it's not terrible. In fact, apart from the name and it centering around Life Day, it has basically nothing to do with the original. Rather, it's very much in keeping with the cute, irreverent, humorous tone the LEGO Star Wars games (and TV specials) have always had. It even manages to poke more than a little much-needed fun at the sequel trilogy. It's all pretty silly, and the personalities of the Emperor and Darth Vader are almost straight out of Robot Chicken. There's an attempt in there to have a heartfelt story of sorts, but c'mon... it's LEGO + Star Wars + Holiday Special. That should tell you how much time they actually dwell on anything resembling a plot. Some of the cast members from the movies and The Clone Wars series reprise their roles**. Those that don't are voiced by exceptionally good mimics. There are a lot of "blink and you'll miss it" in-jokes, and more than a few that are completely ham-fisted. But hey... holidays and ham go together! I got a few genuine laugh-out-loud moments out of it, including the very final shot which, frankly, made the whole thing worth watching (especially if you're a fan of holiday classics). At less-than-half of the run time of the original Holiday Special, the LEGO Star Wars Holiday Special is just long enough to be entertaining without wearing out its welcome. Pop some popcorn, grab some egg nog***, and curl up in front of the TV. There are worse things to spend 44 minutes watching. The LEGO Star Wars Holiday Special gets a 6/10. (*With commercials.) (**If you're interested, here's an article on the making of the special.) (***Mix egg nog 50/50 with 7-Up. Makes for a great holiday punch. Watch out for the foam.) Edit: This gives an overview of the original Holiday Special, but still doesn't fully convey how bad it is:

So you may ask "Wait... why are you reviewing this film??" Well, it's not the 2004 movie where the world is destroyed. Nor is it the 1983 TV movie where the world is destroyed. Nope. This is the 1975 TV special produced by Gerry Anderson of Space: 1999 and UFO fame. (And also Thunderbirds... but that never aired where I grew up, so I never watched that show.) And the world isn't destroyed in this one. Although it does make reference to us having ruined it by destroying the environment. I miss the days when science fiction was still fiction. It was produced between the first two seasons of Space: 1999; co-starred Nick Tate from Space: 1999; was narrated by Ed Bishop from UFO; and the visual effects were supervised by Brian Johnson, who was responsible for the effects for Space: 1999. And it's incredibly obscure. But I remembered it. Even though I'd never seen it. I'd only read about it. Once. Things like this have a tendency to stick in my brain. For example, the rumors about the Empire Strikes Back from Starlog magazine that I wrote about in my review for The Force Awakens. Or the photo from Midnight Madness at the top right of this page from the same issue that stuck in my brain for over 20 years until I finally watched and reviewed the movie for my old MacMAME.net website. In the case of The Day After Tomorrow, this article from Starlog, in September 1979, stuck in my brain for over 40 years. Ever since reading that article, I wanted to watch The Day After Tomorrow, but there was no way to see it. It was a one-shot TV special, and never aired again. Periodically, when I'd see a reference online to Space: 1999 or UFO, I'd think "I wonder if that other thing Gerry Anderson did is online somewhere?" But I didn't see it. Maybe just a short video clip here or there. And certainly, it was too obscure to ever come out on home video. Right? Well, never underestimate the niche fan market. Because some months back, it popped up in my recommendations on Amazon in a DVD collection of Gerry Anderson rarities titled: The Lost Worlds of Gerry Anderson. It actually came out a few years ago, but I only just recently bought it because, well, I've been looking for stuff to watch during the Coronavirus pandemic. Not because I'm stuck at home (I go into work most every day), but more for the distraction. I recently bought a stupid thing because of this too (which I'm enjoying watching very much, by the way). Now, I'm not going to review the whole DVD, because I haven't watched all of the other content (just skimmed it) and the rest of the materials on it aren't of any real interest to me. The Day After Tomorrow is what I bought this for. So... did it live up to 40 years of expectation? Well, of course not! For one thing, I'd forgotten that it was meant to be one in a series of educational programs. In this case - trying to explain Albert Einstein's theory of relativity to kids. (Just re-read that sentence for a minute, and let it sink in.) But the network didn't want a documentary, they wanted an adventure film, so the kids would get engaged and hopefully develop an interest in science. Anderson also had hopes of it being picked up as a series, so the story was left open-ended so it could serve as a pilot. The story centers around the crew of the ship Altares, the first ship capable of near light-speed travel. The crew consists of two kids, two dads and a mom, which was a bit confusing because they didn't really introduce who they were and what their relationships were to each other. (It turns out that one was a single dad with his daughter, and the others were two parents and their son, but you'd never pick that up from watching it.) Their mission is to travel to the nearest star - Alpha Centauri - and explain to the audience what redshift is and how time dilation works. Then they have to decide if they want to return to Earth (where everyone will be much older than they are), or continue on to explore other worlds. And then some other things happen, one of which involves the heavy use of shooting scenes reflected off of mylar that someone gets to wobble around a lot. And they get to explain what a red giant and supernova are, and a black hole, and probably some other stuff. Because of the educational angle, short run-time (under an hour), and made-for-TV nature of it, The Day After Tomorrow plays a bit like something that Filmation might have made just a couple of years later (Ark II, Space Academy), but with higher production values and slightly-less-cheesy dialogue. Plot-wise, it's Lost In Space meets The Black Hole. But without Dr. Smith or Hans Reinhardt. Or robots. That's not to say it's bad... but rather that you have to find the entertainment in it where you can. For me, it was in the first-rate models and sets that echoed what was being done on Space: 1999 at the time (which, apart from 2001: A Space Odyssey, were the best* in sci-fi until Star Wars came along). Also, there's the wonderful, unintentional cheesiness of it at times. Such as the moment where they have to shut down the malfunctioning Photon Drive, which means Nick Tate has to pull on a lever REALLY hard! Pull harder Nick!! Pull for your life!!! (Because an "off" button just wouldn't be any fun.) Or when the resourcefulness of the prop department shines through, and he has to fix the aforementioned, highly advanced and complex drive using a pop-rivet tool. Some of the other entertainment came from seeing similarities to sci-fi that came both before and after this aired. Besides The Black Hole, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan may owe a nod to this film for a scene in which Nick Tate has to go into a radiation-flooded engine compartment, and effect a repair nearly identical to what Spock had to do with the Enterprise seven years later. Coincidence? Probably. But the comparisons are still... fascinating. The Day After Tomorrow is just under an hour long, and it's an interesting artifact from the era of 1970's science fiction. For me, it was worth the cost of the DVD to satisfy my 40-year long curiosity about it. But for someone else, is it worth hunting it down? Well, no. Not unless you're a fan of Gerry Anderson, or are looking for a Saturday Morning kids' TV introduction to the theory of relativity. For what it is, The Day After Tomorrow gets a 5/10. (I wanted to come up with some clever mathematical joke for the score, but math and I never got along very well.) * (Yes, I'm aware of Silent Running - I have it on Blu-ray. I may get around to reviewing that as well, but it's a depressing movie, and I don't need anymore of that right now.)

Let's start at the beginning. When I first saw Star Wars in 1977, it was at the UA 150 theater in downtown Seattle. I was too young to drive, so my parents had to take me down there, a 20 mile round trip, to see the movie. Somehow, over the course of the next year or so, I managed to convince them to do that another 10 or 11 times as I saw the movie again and again. It's pretty astonishing now to think of any movie sticking around in first-run theaters for over a year, but Star Wars did it. The one-year anniversary poster (from my original The Art of Star Wars). I remember seeing this as an ad in the Seattle Times back in-the-day. I will never forget the first time I saw Star Wars. I was in the front row of the balcony when that huge Star Destroyer came flying in over my head - shaking the entire theater. It was an incredible experience, especially for someone whose movie-going experience up until that point consisted of the likes of such Disney fare as The Strongest Man in the World and Herbie the Love Bug Rides Again. I was so overwhelmed by Star Wars, that I can even recall seeing it the second time, and not remembering what was going to happen next. No movie before or since has come close to having that sort of impact on me. At the time, being a kid, the wait for the sequel seemed like an eternity. Remember, this was before home video, cable TV, or anything even remotely resembling the internet, so the only way to see Star Wars was in the theater, and once it left, it was gone. To fill the gap, there was the infamous Holiday Special (which mercifully only aired once), comic books and toys. There was also the novel Splinter of the Mind's Eye (which I read a dozen times), and The Story of Star Wars record, which had an awesome photo booklet in it. I still have mine. My original, well-worn, first edition of Splinter of the Mind's Eye. My original LP of The Story of Star Wars. I should listen to it again someday - it's been well over 35 years. At the time, the only way to get any news about Star Wars was from magazines like Starlog (and yes - I still have my original issues of that, too). It was from articles like this one in particular that I tried to glean every scrap of information that I could about the sequel. Some of the rumors were outlandish, like a holographic Millennium Falcon flying off the screen, or time traveling to Earth's distant past, one had our heroes meeting a Queen of Outer Space*, and another had Mick Jagger composing the soundtrack. But still, anything related to Star Wars was eagerly gobbled up in those interminable three long years before the release of The Empire Strikes Back. *As an aside, I suspect this might have come from the fact that in the Empire Strikes Back, the Emperor was originally played by an actress. Yep. Look it up. Then finally, the week that the movie was going to open arrived. I had plans to go see it that Saturday with some friends. The anticipation was unbearable. And on Monday evening, before the film opened, my best friend Paul called me up, and uttered the life-changing words: "The book is out!" "The book is out." My original copy. I had to have it. I rushed over to the local Fred Meyer, bought it, took it home and read it cover to cover. I'm not sure when the regret set in. Probably as soon as I finished reading it. I have no recollection of actually reading it, or what I thought of any of it. All I remember is spending the rest of the week desperately trying to forget what I'd read. It didn't work. I knew everything that was going to happen, before it happened. When the Mynock attacked the cockpit of the Millennium Falcon, the girl sitting next to me in the theater nearly jumped out of her seat. I didn't even blink. And of course, one of the biggest movie moments of all time was totally spoiled for me. By me. No shock. No awe. I never got to experience that singular moment that made Empire such a phenomenal movie, and the favorite of so many Star Wars fans. Now I still loved seeing Empire. It was terrific fun and powerfully engaging to watch, from the AT-ATs on Hoth to the Falcon's flight through the asteroid field, from the Dark Side cave on Dagobah to the climactic lightsaber fight. The story, acting, effects, and characters were all elevated far above the first film. And while I can qualitatively agree it's the best of the Star Wars films, it's not my favorite. Having been spoiled, Empire lacked the emotional impact that Star Wars had on me. If I'd never read the book, I might have a very different opinion. It certainly would have been a very different movie-going experience. But Star Wars will always be my favorite, because that's the theatrical experience that had the strongest impact on me. Empire will always be second, unless something better comes along. And so, the hard way, perhaps on the worst film possible to have spoiled, I learned about spoilers. That's why these are Spolier-free reviews. Too bad I couldn't have learned that lesson on pretty-much any other film. For example, Star Trek: The Motion Picture would have been just fine. I had been looking forward to that just as much as Empire, but that was phenomenally disappointing, and came out six months earlier. But then perhaps the lesson wouldn't have stuck with me so much. As an aside, Return of the Jedi was also semi-spoiled for me while I was waiting in line to go see it, when some twit walking out of the theater said, Thanks for that, jerk-face. But apart from the speeder-bike chase and a certain Princess in a metal bikini, I felt Jedi was essentially a big, Muppety, Ewok turd.** A harbinger, it would turn out, of the next three Star Wars films to come. **I could go on for a long time about what I disliked in Jedi. But the short list is: every creature except Jabba, the Ewoks, all of the acting, all of the dialog, having the Emperor turn out to be Witchiepoo from H.R. Pufnstuf, the Lapti Nek and Ewok songs, having Darth Vader turn out to be Humpty Dumpty, and rehashing the final Death Star battle from Star Wars because George couldn't come up with a better idea. Which brings us to Star Wars: The Force Awakens. When I'd heard J.J. Abrams was going to direct it, frankly, I couldn't have been less interested. Despite my initial somewhat positive reactions to his first and second Star Trek films, I found them unwatchable on repeated viewings. The characters were too annoying, and the stories too stupid. I got tired of the laughably bad lens flares, nausea-inducing shaky-cam, and the completely ridiculous technology used to fix gaping plot holes ("red matter" and interstellar transporter backpack, I'm looking at you). But after a time, and as more Star Wars footage eked out in the trailers, I became more interested. Still skeptical, given the last four Star Wars movies, but willing to give it a chance. So that meant avoiding spoilers. Now, I will give Abrams credit for this: he kept a very tight lid on the film's secrets. While I'm sure plot details could be found if you dug enough, for the most part, they were absent from the mainstream internet and news media. But when showings began selling out as soon as tickets went on pre-sale, I knew there might be trouble remaining spoiler-free. I was going to be traveling around the opening date so I wasn't sure where I'd be able to see it. Even when that was settled, and although we bought our tickets in early December, the earliest date we could get good seats for was December 28th. Sure, we probably could've gotten into a multiplex screening somewhere earlier, but I detest multiplexes, and was determined to see it at a proper movie theater - in this case, The Cinerama in Seattle. Besides it recently having been fully restored into a completely state-of-the-art theater, it also features reserved seating. Well worth waiting a few extra days for, so you know where you're going to sit, without having to jockey in line with a bunch of other theater-goers. Plus, the Cinerama also doesn't run any ads before movies, keeps the trailers to a minimum (in this case, just three), and best of all - before Star Wars: The Force Awakens - they ran the classic Warner Bros. short Duck Dodgers in the 24 1/2th Century. Awesome. The trick then, was to largely avoid the Internet and media for the ten days from the time movie opened, until I was finally able to go see it. And of course, avoid any jerks coming out of the previous screening who might be blabbing about it. But in the end, as the lights dimmed, I had successfully avoided all spoilers. So the whole film was going to be a completely new, unknown experience to me. As the movie started, I found myself actually anticipating it. As "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..." came onscreen, I felt a twinge of excitement that I hadn't felt since the original trilogy. But would the movie live up to it? Well then, I guess I should get on to the review. First, and most important, I did have fun watching it. The Force Awakens felt very much like the original trilogy, and was much better than any of the prequel trilogy. And although that may not be much of a feat, I also felt it was better than Return of the Jedi. (But note my opinions regarding ROTJ, above.) But it certainly wasn't a perfect movie. So here are a few of the things I liked: The opening title crawl. This set the tone for the movie, and is the first thing that The Phantom Menace got so horribly wrong. "The taxation of trade routes is in dispute?!" Gimme a break. No such nonsense here. We're dropped right into a compelling and instantly accessible story that we want to watch. The new characters. Particularly Daisy Ridley as Rey and John Boyega as Finn. They're genuinely likable and compelling characters, and it looks like the actors are really enjoying themselves. They have great onscreen presence and chemistry, and engaging stories and character arcs. Adam Driver also does a great turn as Kylo Ren - a very different Star Wars villain, more complex than most, and unpredictable. The classic characters. Here's the thing - this is clearly about handing Star Wars off to a new generation, so they don't dominate the movie. And they shouldn't. But it was still good to see them again. It wouldn't have been the same without them. The action. There are some great space battles, lightsaber fights, chases, and of course, the Millennium Falcon doing what it does best. And mercifully, very little shaky cam or lens flares. The design. From the effects to the sets to the costumers, this looks like Star Wars. It feels like Star Wars. This is unquestionably the same universe as the original trilogy. This is nothing like what J. J. did to Star Trek. John Williams' score. Sure, he's no Mick Jagger, but hearing those familiar themes peppered throughout the film is still powerful after all these years. And I've already bought the soundtrack. The surprises. There were some nice ones in the film that I didn't see coming. Not going to say anything else here. That said, there are certainly things that I didn't like: The movie borrows somewhat quite very extremely heavily from the original trilogy. It gets to the point where it becomes a detriment to the movie, overshadowing everything. By far, I found this to be the most disappointing aspect of the film, as it happened throughout the movie, and I found myself continually being distracted from the new material, by old, familiar tropes. Even the characters acknowledge this onscreen at one point, and the movie almost becomes a parody of itself. I hope the sequel finds a way to be more original. Some of the new characters are under-utilized, particularly the villains. Hopefully the sequel will address this, and we'll get some more depth there. A lot of history has apparently happened, but little explanation is given to it. In some ways, this is a good thing (avoiding the mess of the prequels), but in others, it's confusing. I have no idea what roles the First Order or the New Republic or The Resistance have in the galaxy now, or how they got there. I don't even know who's really in charge. I suppose I need to pick up a comic book or something. Or, again, maybe more will be explained in the sequel. Predictability. While a lot of the movie still had some great surprises, there were quite a few moments that were just ham-handedly telegraphed. I could see they were going to happen, and just waited for them to play out. J. J.'s penchant for ridiculous technology McGuffins (like the aforementioned "red matter" and interstellar transporter from the Star Trek films), reared its ugly head again. There are a few things that were thrown in there as fanboy moments which I think can be overlooked (things that J. J. probably thought were super-cool when he was 12 years old, playing with his Star Wars toys), but there was one thing that dominated the film in the sheer scale of its ridiculousness that can only be the result of lazy writing and (again) the lack of a better idea. This was crux of the moment of self-parody that I mentioned before. The movie would have been far better-off without it. In the end though, I enjoyed seeing Star Wars: The Force Awakens. I walked out of the theater looking forward to the next film. And although I think that's a good thing, it could be considered a knock against the film, too. I think (or hope) that the sequel will actually be the new Star Wars we're looking for. This was a welcomed reintroduction back into the franchise, but it isn't the heart of the story. Not yet. There were certainly some great moments in The Force Awakens, but also plenty of weak ones. I was in a packed theater, and while there were a few cheers or smatterings of applause here or there, there was never any one moment where the whole audience went absolutely nuts. Star Wars needs "that moment" again. It's not here. But it was still a fun movie to watch. If that's all you expect going into it, you'll do just fine. I went in expecting nothing, so I came out ahead. Star Wars: The Force Awakens gets a 7.9/10.

I've been a fan of Herb Alpert since I was a kid. We just about wore out the Tijuana Brass Christmas Album playing it every year. Then for some reason, in my early teens, I started really getting into their music. I'm not sure why, other than it was probably because I was getting into collecting records at the time (the Monkees), my folks already had a number of TJB records at home, and I was playing trumpet in band at school. And, well, the music was fun and catchy. It was already at least a dozen years out-of-date by then, but it was so unique, listenable and undeniably happy, myself and a couple of friends really got into it. Non-ironically, too. But I really didn't know anything about Herb or the TJB. In fact, when I went to ask our high school band director if we could play some Herb Alpert music, he said, "We already are." Little did I know, Herb had just had a massive hit with the #1 song Rise, and we were playing 1980 - the opening track on that album (you should be able to guess the year this all happened ). I don't think Rise ever got any play on the radio station I was listening to at the time, which was AM top 40. I certainly don't remember hearing it before getting the album. (If Rise sounds familiar to you young 'uns out there, this was sampled by Biggie Smalls and became a hit all over again, generating even more royalties for Herb. Nice work if you can get it.) But at that point I started following Herb as a solo artist, and each new album was... Well, hang on. I've already written this somewhere. Let me find it. It's here somewhere... It's really too bad Categories don't exist in the blogs here anymore. It would make this a lot easier. Gimme a minute... Okay, here we go. So I've written about Herb's solo career here: https://atariage.com/forums/blogs/entry/1311-time-marches-on/?tab=comments#comment-2826 And here: https://atariage.com/forums/blogs/entry/6419-mutton-beef-and-trout/ And here: https://atariage.com/forums/blogs/entry/8097-new-old-music-part-4/ And here: https://atariage.com/forums/blogs/entry/13004-new-old-music-parts-8-9-10/ And here: https://atariage.com/forums/blogs/entry/15180-new-old-music-parts-13-14-15/ And even then, there have been two more albums released since then that I haven't reviewed yet. The point is he's recorded a lot of music. Not counting Greatest Hits compilations, I have 47 of his albums (which are all of the ones I'm aware of), 30 of which were recorded after he disbanded the TJB. And he's continually changing what he's doing. He never stands still, and rarely does the same thing twice. Always exploring. Following his instincts. Creating what sounds good to him, not necessarily what he thinks will be a hit. Plus, Herb's a painter. And a sculpter. And a very wealthy philanthropist. You see, the TJB earned him a lot of money. He sold over 72 million records. That includes 15 gold records, 14 platinum records, several #1's, and 9 Grammy awards. He was also the "A" in A&M Records. He and co-founder Jerry Moss sold that to PolyGram in 1990 for $500 million. Not bad for a couple of guys who started in a garage with a tape recorder. So, from this unassuming trumpet player playing "happy music", to a multimillionaire industry giant, to a remarkably humble artist and generous philanthropist. This is all stuff that I learned over many years of following him, reading articles here and there, and of course piecing things together on the internet. Now of course, you can look up a lot of this on Herb's website or Wikipedia. One-stop shopping. But that doesn't really show you who Herb Alpert is. (How's that for a segue? Even after months off, you're still getting the same quality writing you've come to expect from my blog! Note that I didn't say "good" quality. Just "same" quality.) But this new documentary does. Herb Alpert Is... was originally intended for a theatrical release, but the Coronavirus pretty-much took care of that. But you can get it on various streaming platforms. In my case, I bought it on iTunes. Even though I knew much of the information factually, when you can see and hear Herb talk about his career, and watch vintage performances, hear first-hand accounts and interviews, it becomes a far more engaging and engrossing story. More than half of the documentary focuses on Herb's early career and years with the TJB and A&M. Of course, that's where people know him from. It largely skims over his solo years, stopping briefly to focus on some work he did with Hugh Masekela, the recording of Rise, and his collaboration with Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis, but it doesn't really do a thorough job of showing how much music he's recorded as a solo artist. That said, this is more of a biography than a discography, and it does show who Herb Alpert is... as a person, an artist, and how he's arrived at who he is now: a vibrant, passionate, committed husband, artist, philanthropist and musician. At the age of 85. There are a few fun facts it would've been nice for them to touch on - Herb playing at the Super Bowl, or being an extra in The Ten Commandments, but it still covers a remarkable amount of ground. For my money, it could've easily gone another 30 minutes. I would've loved to have heard more about his creative process with the TJB and his solo career. Maybe they'll release some bonus footage or an extended cut someday. Still, it's a compelling and inspiring story. It's positive and uplifting. And the music is still happy. Right now, we could use pretty-much all of that. Herb Alpert Is... a 9/10. (There's also a BBC documentary from ten years ago, which covers much of the same ground. It's only an hour long, and the approach is more factual and less personal, but it's still very good.)

Continuing on with the continuation of my blog (and because I've only written 5 episodes of Artie so far), it's time for the return of the Spoiler-free review! Unfortunately, because of the Coronavirus pandemic, there aren't any movie theaters open around here. And even if there were, frankly, I wouldn't go into one right now unless the audience members were all sealed up in giant Ziploc bags and wiped down with a bleach solution, which would kind of negatively impact the whole ambience of the place. But there have been some movies that were slated for theatrical release that have been made available on streaming services (in this case, iTunes), so we'll just go with a couple of those. I've always thought that Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure was one of the best (or certainly most fun) time travel movies. It had a goofiness and charm to it, was genuinely funny, used time travel very cleverly (by completely ignoring paradoxes) and had two extremely likable characters in Bill and Ted played by Alex Winter and Keanu Reeves. The sequel - Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey - wasn't as much fun, or quite as clever, but avoided the pitfall of just repeating the first film, and still managed to have some fun moments. The high point was William Sadler as a brilliantly funny personification of Death. The ending, while not as clever or satisfying as the first film, seemed to tie up the storyline for the two lead characters as they performed for a worldwide audience, fulfilling their destiny. A third movie had been rumored for years, and was officially announced two and a half years go. It was one of those projects that made me think "Why?" At that point Reeves and Winter were already too old to play the same daft but lovable high schoolers. And what would they do? They'd already fulfilled their destiny, hadn't they? Bill & Ted Face the Music answers that question by revealing that no - they hadn't. In fact, they were now middle-aged has-beens, and the end of the second movie wasn't the end of their story. What makes Face the Music work is how effortlessly Winter and Reeves fall back into these characters again. They're still earnest, likable, and somewhat daft (perhaps naive is a better word), but - and this is the important part - they've grown. They've been trying desperately for the past 25 years to write the song that would unite the world, and they've worked hard at it too. They've learned all about music, released album after album, and raised their daughters to have that same passion for music. It feels honest - that these two characters really are the same ones from decades earlier, but they haven't stagnated. The movie doesn't try to make time stand still (pun intended) and keep these characters stuck in the past. They've been trying their best. Older, wiser, but still unmistakably Bill and Ted. Bill and Ted's two daughters (Brigette Lundy-Paine and Samara Weaving) are fun to watch interacting with their dads, with Lundy-Paine particularly doing a most excellent job of picking up Reeves' mannerisms. William Sadler makes a welcomed return as Death and falls right back into character. Several other characters from the first two films also return (although a few were re-cast) and really help this feel like a continuation of the original films. A fun new addition to the cast is robot from the future played by Anthony Carrigan. As weird as the universe of Bill & Ted has become, he fits right in. The film revisits some of the tropes from the first two films, but without merely repeating them. The humor and writing style picks up right where the previous films left off, and the whole film feels very much like it belongs with the first two (it helps that the original writers from the first two movies were behind this one as well). The writers, cast and crew clearly had fun making this. Kudos especially to Reeves for being willing to step back into the role when he's become one of the biggest action movie stars in the world. He really didn't have to do this for any other reason than for the fun of it. Clips shown during the end credits tie the movie into how people from all across the world are using the internet to collaborate musically during the pandemic. It was genuinely (and surprisingly) emotional and is actually my favorite part of the film. (And yes... there's a post-credits scene too. Stick around, or fast forward, for that.) Since I didn't own the first two films in HD (only DVD for the first film), I bought all three on iTunes for only $30. That's about what it would cost to go to a nice theater (with snacks) to see just one movie, so it was definitely worth it, especially to re-watch the first two films again before seeing this one. Bonus features are minimal. Bill & Ted Face the Music is fun, light, and heartfelt entertainment. If you liked the first two films, you'll enjoy this one. It's not as good as the first, but better than the second, and it does a most excellent job of concluding the trilogy. And right now, in the midst of 2020, you can do far worse than that. Bill & Ted Face the Music gets a most non-heinous 7/10. Be excellent to each other!

SOLD! I have 4 Philips CD-I movies for sale. I picked these up new maybe 25 years ago? in one of the music & movie stores I worked when when they went out of business. I've never had a CD-I and have only ever played them a few times via computer. $20 shipped in the continental US.

SOLD! I got all these DVDs with a large lot of stuff. The three large stacks (with just over 100 movies) all have the correct DVD in them. Condition varies and many of them are previous rentals. The short all has cases with discs other than the ones that belong in them but I'll include them in case there is anything you find interesting. Shipping shouldn't be too much since these can be shipped with media mail.

Ten pounds of Bantha poodoo in a five pound bag. Okay, that's not quite the adage, but you get the idea. Anyway, now you don't have to read the rest of the review! You're welcome! But in case you're still here... When I first heard JJ Abrams would be directing Star Wars: Episode IX, I cringed. JJ Abrams is a lazy writer who substitutes hare-brained McGuffins for coherent plots and character development, and who has a complete disregard and profound lack of understanding for established rules of pre-existing movie franchises. If this wasn't already evident in the first two Star Trek movies with their abysmally drab characterizations and idiotic plot devices like Red Matter and interplanetary transporter backpacks, then it should've been hammered home with Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. Even though I largely gave that movie a passing grade the first time I saw it, the ridiculousness of the sun-sucking Starkiller Base and JJ's other tropes effectively ruined it for repeat viewings. It still has entertaining moments, but as a whole, the movie just falls flat. I don't watch it when it comes on TV, or go out of my way to watch it on iTunes. The movie is too self-consciously a movie, and not a story that I can lose myself in. Episode VIII: The Last Jedi was far more divisive, with some fans hating the characterization of Luke Skywalker. That didn't bother me, since I liked seeing him in the state of a fallen icon, because it's when heroes are at their lowest that they can then rise to their highest. Far more annoying was the time wasted on the Casino planet, and most critically, director Rian Johnson's utter lack of regard for what happened in the previous film. "Wait," you say, "I thought you didn't like JJ's film?" Well, I didn't hate it. I just thought it was largely unimaginative and unoriginal. But it did set up new characters and situations: Rey, Ren, Snoke, the First Order, and left mysteries in place that at the time felt like there was a clear payoff ahead for. But with Episode VIII, that all went out the window. Snoke was dead, Rey was a nobody, Kylo was maybe not-so-bad for awhile, but then he was again, then Luke was dead (as dead as Jedis get anyway), and you could now use the Force for unlimited long-distance calling. So now there was clearly a new purpose behind all of this, right? Maybe? Well, who knows? We certainly won't. Because under Disney, the Skywalker saga is a rudderless ship. I detested the prequels. I think they're all terrible films (in all fairness, it's mostly just the acting, writing, directing and horribly racist stereotypes... otherwise they're fine). But here's the thing - at least they were on a clear path. Whether you liked that path or not, George had a plan and he stuck to it. Conversely, the postquels (has anyone coined that word yet? Because I should totally trademark that. Shoot. Maybe next time.) have no oversight. No overarching plan. No goal. It's just, "Hey JJ, make a Star Wars movie." "Hey Rian, make a Star Wars movie." "Hey Colin, make a Star Wars movie. Never mind, you're fired." "Hey JJ, make another Star Wars movie." And so it goes with Episode IX. JJ came in, ignored what Rian did, retconned a bunch of story and character arcs, and came up with another derivative retread that felt more like something made by a fanboy, or a four-year-old playing with his action figures - (breathlessly) "then Rey goes here and does this, an' then Poe does this, an' then the Millennium Falcon goes 'swoosh!!' an' saves everyone, an' then Kylo Ren gets mad, an' then they go here an' there's sand everywhere, an' then the Force does this, an' then they meet this girl, an' then they go here, an' then the bad guys do this..." etc. If you've watched little kids play, you get the idea. Now, do that for 2 1/2 hours, and that's this movie. JJ tried to cram at least two movies worth of stuff into this film. Much of which, and I do mean much, could've easily been left out. Do we really care about Poe and Finn? No. This is Rey's story. Or it should be. A friend and I tried to recount the film just after having seen it, and it was hard for us to piece it back together. The pacing is hyperactive. There's no time to get involved with the characters, or dwell on anything that's happening. None of it feels like it has any weight or consequence to it. This is an overstuffed, discombobulated mess. That may be the first time I've used "discombobulated" in this blog. I like saying that word. "Discombobulated." I should use it more. Maybe I have, but the blog software is so discombobulated right now, I doubt it would return it in a search. I like the word "pusillanimous" too. But I've been afraid to use it. Anyway... And then there are JJ's other problems. For one, his complete lack of originality or respect for the source material. He blatantly rips off the ending of yet another Star Wars film. Goes to yet another desert planet. Revisits the remains of the Death Star II. Dredges up old characters instead of creating a new threat, and as a friend of mine pointed out, actually ends up invalidating the Rebel Alliance's victory over the Empire. Guess what? The end of Return of the Jedi was all meaningless, suckers! Then, of course, you have his McGuffins. Ugh. Please, someone stop JJ from writing anymore science fiction, ever again. How do I put this without spoilers? Well, remember Starkiller Base, and how derivative that was of the Death Star? Remember how it needed the power of an entire sun, and was the size of a planet? In Star Wars, blowing up entire planets is a big deal, and you just can't do that all willy-nilly, right? Well... And then there's the Force. JJ started us on a slippery slope with Kylo Ren Force-stopping laser bolts in mid-air, and Force mind-reading, and so on. And then Rian Johnson came in and doubled down with Force projection, and Force touching, and Force space-floating-in-a-vacuum, and people got all up-in-arms about it. Well, JJ apparently wanted to actually make an Avengers movie instead of Star Wars this time, because in Episode IX he uses the Force as one-stop shopping for all sorts of ridiculous super-abilities that takes Star Wars completely off the rails. If any of it ever gets explained in the film, it's only through the briefest, throwaway lines of dialog that if you blink, you'll miss. JJ uses the Force as a crutch to get out of story situations caused by lazy writing. It's his Red Matter for Star Wars. Then we have Carrie Fisher. I was saddened by her passing. (I had a huge crush on her when I was a kid.) When JJ said they were going to repurpose unused footage of her to add her to the film, I was skeptical. It works about as well as you'd expect. Her lines are vague enough to be shoehorned into the story, but there's little substance to it. There wasn't really enough to fully tell her story in-depth, and knowing how they added her in only called more attention to it and took me out of the movie. And as for the "we won't use CGI to bring her back" promise? Bunk. Maybe the biggest issue with Episode IX is that in the end, it feels of no consequence. I felt no investment in the story, nor in the characters. The Resistance, the First Order - none of it ever felt like it had been explained, and there never was a sense of history or importance to them. In the original Star Wars, there was an evil Galactic Empire, and a small group of Rebels fighting for freedom. We got that in the opening paragraph and understood it immediately. Empire. Check! Rebels. Check! But in this trilogy, there's a Republic, a First Order, a Resistance, and you don't know who came first, how they rose to power, who has the most power, or why. And this is important, since we're invested in an entire galactic history by this point. And here again in Episode IX, so much (and I mean a massive amount) remains unexplained, I just couldn't buy into it. "Really, all that happened? And where did they get all of those matching bathrobes? Sure, whatever." Finally, they threw up so many red herrings in the film like, "Oh, we're going to do this to so-and-so now! Just kidding, now we're undoing it!" that after awhile none of it had any meaning. Nobody or any of their actions really mattered anymore, and I didn't care about who made it through or what was going to happen in the end. There was also a ridiculous amount of pandering to the fans (I'm going to call it "fandering". That one's original, right? Shoot.) to the point of distraction, where you're aware you're being force-fed Star Wars tropes, rather than being allowed to get immersed in a story, or be captivated by characters. In the end it all felt... pointless. (And besides, JJ totally missed an opportunity to bring back Koo Stark. If you're going to pander to fans, how can you miss that one? Pffft.) Star Wars Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker is a disjointed, disconnected, cluttered mess. It's ten pounds of Bantha poodoo stuffed in a five pound bag. And it's recycled poodoo at that. It's an unsatisfying way to "end" the Skywalker saga, and more to the point, it all just felt like none of it really mattered. Sure there were a few moments of fun, and a few fan moments that connected with me, but it was all so contrived that it never felt genuine. The audience reactions were manipulated, not earned. The theater I was at was full, but there weren't any roaring cheers or spontaneous applause. That said, the movie wasn't prequel-level bad, it was just kind of... there. Uninspiring, unfocused, and inconsequential. I guess it's just as well the Skywalker saga is now over, because I'm now over the Skywalker saga. I wonder what George would've done... Star Wars Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker gets 5/10. A half-bag worth of Bantha poodoo.

Well, that was weird. No, not the movie. My last blog post. Well, not the post, but the way it got posted. It used to be, that when you posted a new blog entry, it would move to the top of the main blog page. But mine didn't. It stayed down at the bottom, right below Eric Ball's latest entry: The weird thing is, I posted my entry on August 10: And Eric had posted his on July 10: And uh... Wait. Why did the blog software make that graphic so big? It's huge!! Give me a minute here. (Several annoying minutes and edits later...) Okay. So, one of the things I hate about high resolution monitors, is that everything arbitrarily scales things to the size they think they "should" be. This includes screenshots in whatever Apple OS I'm using this week. It used to be a pixel was a pixel. Now you're just guessing at what size things may or may not display at. And this brings up another problem with Invision's lousy blog software (in case you're wondering what I'm talking about, hang in there a minute...). You see, for the most part, I link directly to image files I use in my blog, rather than uploading them. This way I can simply replace files in my FTP folder when I want to update something. But not anymore. Now, Invision's stupid blog software cache's its own local version of a linked file. So when I upload a new one, it doesn't change. And it's not my browser cache either, because I cleared that. And I also confirmed this in another browser that I hadn't even logged into AtariAge with. If this looks twice as large as the other one, then you're seeing Invision's stupid caching: Because if you open the actual image link in another window, you'll see the actual size of the file: http://cheeptech.com/misc/blog_pics/july-10.jpg (Here's a screenshot, since this will probably eventually be fixed accidentally by Invision or the cache will randomly expire): In order to update the screenshot to the smaller version, I had to rename, re-upload and replace it. That completely defeats the purpose of linking to the FILE IN THE FIRST PLACE!! (sigh) Yeah, I'm on another Invision rant. You may have missed the last one, because instead of putting that blog entry at the top, it buried it amongst the older entries. Like I was mentioning before. That entry, by the way, was a movie review. But it devolved into a rant about Invision's stupid blog software. But clearly, Invision doesn't care about blogs, because they've now been relegated to a submenu under Apps, rather than having their own link. Thanks, Invision. So, why did my other post get posted out-of-order? Well, if I had to guess, it was probably because I didn't click "Immediately" for "Publish Time". I had saved it while working on it, so the time stamp was a little bit earlier than "Immediately" would've been. Since the blogs no longer list when entries were actually posted, but just show "Latest", I'm guessing the time stamp is screwed-up, or missing, or whatever. So this time, I'll click "Immediately" and see what happens. Why not? should be fun. Anyway, onto the movie review. As with Spider-Man: Far From Home, I actually saw this a few weeks ago while on vacation, but never got around to typing up a review for it. Actually though, I never planned on seeing it in the first place. You see, I'm kind of done with Pixar. And Toy Story. I'm just tired of them. When I saw Toy Story 3, I really, really liked it and... WHAT IS A WEB BROWSER POLL DOING IN MY TOY STORY 3 MOVIE REVIEW?!?! WHAT THE INVISION IS GOING ON HERE?!?!? I did NOT put that in there. Now admittedly, that would've been a pretty funny joke. But I have no idea where that came from!!! Wow. Maybe I need to move my blog. MySpace is still a thing, right? Sheesh. Okay... let's try and finish this. So, I really liked Toy Story 3 when I saw it in theaters. But the weird thing is, I never re-watched it. Whenever it comes on TV, I avoid it. Not ignore - avoid. Why? Well, I'm just kind of tired of those characters. Oversaturated with them. And the movie, while it does have some really funny moments, in hindsight the emotional stuff is all a bit cloying and manipulative now. I still think Toy Story and Toy Story 2 are really good movies (although they're starting to look pretty dated now), but that's because they were still exploring new ideas. But with Toy Story 3, it was the whole unloved/lost/abandoned/Woody-is-all-angsty toy schtick again. But it closed out the series, and that was fine. The toys were in good hands, happy ending, the end. Of course, Disney wasn't going to let it end there. They became sequel-happy. And the sequels have been ridiculously successful, with Toy Story 3, Incredibles 2, and Finding Dory each earning over $1 billion worldwide. In fact, now including Toy Story 4, the only Pixar movies that have cleared a billion dollars worldwide have been sequels. Sure, Pixar has recently said that they won't be doing any more sequels, but don't you believe it. I never bothered seeing Cars 3 or Finding Dory, but even beyond the sequels, I've grown weary of Pixar's original films as well. The Good Dinosaur was a train wreck, Inside Out did nothing for me (and I've never re-watched it), and I didn't think much of Coco either and... wait, WHY IS THERE A YOUTUBE VIDEO IN THE MIDDLE OF MY COCO REVIEW?!?! Oh right... that used to be a link, and Invision arbitrarily decided to turn it into an embedded video. Idiots. You know, writing movie reviews didn't used to be this difficult. Anyway, so... I'm tired of Toy Story, Pixar, blah, blah, blah. But we needed something to go see during vacation, and there was nothing else in the theaters worth seeing (I'd already seen Spider-Man), so we figured Toy Story 4 was well-reviewed enough to justify seeing. And it was okay. It was well-animated. Had some funny scenes. And the new characters: Forky, Ducky and Bunny really need to get their own road-trip movie. Seriously - I'd pay good money to see that. But I'm just tired of Woody and his endlessly repeating need to re-learn some valuable life lesson. It's just worn thin. To the writers' credit, they did come up with an interesting take on the whole "lost toy" idea, but by far the most interesting character in the film was Forky, and they didn't spend nearly enough time delving into what makes him tick. They touch on it here and there, and it makes for some of the best scenes in the film (including a scene during the credits that's almost worth the price of admission), but just as they get into it, it becomes about Woody again. As for the rest of the Toy Story characters, they were effectively relegated to support roles, when they showed up at all. And yes, that includes Buzz. In Toy Story 3, his gimmick was that he was reset and spoke Spanish. In this one, he has another gimmick related to his digitized voice, and given how long the character has been around, it seems he's actually regressed in this film, from where we would expect him to be. They did bring back Bo Peep who had been missing after Toy Story 2, and we get to find out a little bit about what she's been up to. But again, this is Woody's film, and even her story becomes about him. So while she probably has a really interesting story to tell, it becomes more about his reactions to where she is now, than giving her the center stage. It almost seems a little like they're pandering to girls in the audience, without really following through with the character in any meaningful way. Speaking of pandering, that's the only way I can describe the ending of the villain's story in this film. It was shlocky and lazy. It's like someone saw an early Pixar movie, and decided they wanted to copy the feeling they got from watching it without understanding how it was accomplished. As an aside, there was just some weird stuff in this movie, too. Previously, the toys didn't impact the world around them much or interact with people directly (except Woody's line to Sid at the end of the first film), and the movie even alludes to those being rules that aren't allowed to be broken in a couple of really funny scenes with Ducky and Bunny. But then near the end of the film, the toys completely throw those rules out the window in a really big way. It just doesn't fit in with the established Toy Story universe, and it seems like a lazy solution to a story problem the writers found themselves in. Toy Story 4 would've been a better film if it were used as a vehicle to pass the torch to the next generation of characters (as mentioned, Forky, Ducky and Bunny were standouts), but this was more like Toy Story 2.5, than Toy Story 4. It's not that it's a bad film, but it missed its best opportunities to be something new and different. Toy Story 4 gets a 6/10. But in hindsight, I'll probably look back at it and think I should've given it a 4 or 5. That always happens when I go back and look at old movie reviews. I often score a movie I've seen in the theater higher than I otherwise would, probably because the theatrical experience enhances my perception of the film. Maybe having waited a few weeks to write this review will have tempered that somewhat, but these are pretty-much the thoughts I had when I was leaving the theater. Maybe 5.5 would be better.

I saw Spider-Man: Far From Home a couple of weeks ago while on vacation, but since I was on vacation, I didn't feel like typing up a review at the time. I had other, vacation-y things to do. Also, while I think the forum changes at AtariAge have been a welcomed and much needed upgrade, I don't care for the changes in the blogs at all. In fact, I've all-but stopped visiting the blogs. The main page is a cluttered mess with banners that should be hidden unless you want to view them, and there's a complete lack of separation between different blogs so they're all lumped together. In individual blog indices there's no apparent way to view entries as straightforward lists rather than as yet-more banner-clogged grids (banners should be shut off by default unless a blog author wants to add them.) Worst though, is a complete lack of support for categories or tags, which makes finding things a chore, if not impossible. From a blogger's standpoint, when creating new entries, I can't match pre-existing tags if they were capitalized before (it forces lowercase), so clicking on any new entry tags as a means of searching brings up nothing from before the upgrade (excuse me Invision for choosing not to be net-illiterate). Try it with this entry. Click on the orange "movies" button near the title, and see what shows up. Then, click on this link instead. Consequently, I can't say I've had much interest in continuing to post things in my blog, knowing that the work I've done to try and organize it into useful categories is now all for naught. And if I don't want to slog through my own blog indices to find posts, I can't see why anyone else would want to. So for the moment, I don't have a lot of motivation for continuing with Artie the Atari, Homebreviews, New Old Music, WRC updates, Homebrew Art or other ongoing series of posts here, at least not until the blogs get the same sort of usability overhaul the rest of the forums have seen. Right now - I can't even effectively search through my own blog to find entries that I know exist. But given that blogs have always been Invision's unloved stepchild, I doubt that will happen anytime soon. (I should note, none of this vitriol is directed at Albert - the forums desperately needed an upgrade, and he's been swamped with the massive undertaking of making all of that work. He can't be expected to single-handedly fix everything Invision stupidly broke.) But anyway, I did see a couple of movies recently, so I'll go ahead and review them. As for the rest of this blog, we'll just have to see. It could be I'm just mired in post-vacation doldrums right now... Spider-Man: Far From Home follows the events of Avengers: Endgame eight months later, and does a pretty good job of showing some of the aftermath of the events of that movie. Although frankly, everyone seems a bit too chill (as the kids say) given everything that's happened, and the world all seems a bit too back-to-normal, given that half of its entire population disappeared for five years, and that there have now been three alien attacks on Earth (Avengers, Avengers: Infinity War, and Avengers: Endgame). But from a story-telling standpoint, at some point you kind-of have to put the world back together and just get on with things. That's how comic books work. That's a bit of a minor complaint though, since I really liked Far From Home. As with the best Spider-Man stories, the focus is on Peter Parker and Tom Holland does his best work to date with the character here. This is what really set Stan Lee's approach apart - he made the characters interesting, not just their superpowers. Peter is still clearly a high-schooler, dealing with high-school things. Notably, his growing crush on MJ (wonderfully played here by Zendaya again). That's the foremost thing on Peter's mind throughout the film. Yes - there's a major threat in the film to be dealt with, and he's trying to find his footing in the aftermath of Endgame, but he can't get his mind off of MJ. He has the weight of his responsibilities of Spider-Man to balance with just wanting to be a teenager. Sometimes you want the weight of those responsibilities to just go away. It's very human, very relatable, and makes for a very compelling, engaging, likable character. Classic Spider-Man. The film is well-written and acted throughout, with a lot of moments that are genuinely funny, some that are touching and sweet, and some that are very intense and powerful. The action sequences work really well, and touch on Spider-Man's ability to find his own way to deal with villains who seem to have him at a disadvantage. The special effects are generally top-notch throughout with only a few "eh, that could've been better" moments (when you farm out special effects to that many companies, you'll never get 100%; even watching Avengers: Endgame on iTunes the other night, there was some pretty chintzy CG that jumped out at me that I missed in the theater). So from a Spider-Man standpoint, a Peter Parker standpoint, and a character standpoint, Far From Home is excellent. And that includes Jake Gyllenhaal who does a great job as Mysterio (and kudos to the costume designers who nailed his comic book look without making it look goofy and stupid). Which brings up the one problem I had with the film. If you know about Mysterio from the comics, then the film is a bit predictable. If you don't, you'll be fine. Still, despite that, I really enjoyed the film. I thought they nailed the feel of Spider-Man as a teenager, and what makes him a hero. Sure, action sequences and special effects are great, but the best superhero films are about the characters and their journeys. The Marvel/Sony Spider-Man deal apparently has one more film left to go (and the mid-credits scene definitely sets that up in a classic Spider-Man way). I really hope they extend their deal beyond that. I want to see this Spider-Man continue. There are a lot of stories left to tell. C'mon Disney - you have all the money in the world now. Just throw several billion dollars at Sony and buy the rest of your characters back already. Spider-Man: Far From Home gets an 8.5/10

If you go to the theater late enough at night... you can still get tickets to Avengers: Endgame. Which I did - going to a 10:45 PM showing last night. Mainly because I wanted to avoid spoilers, and the way articles and videos were popping up all over the internet about the movie, I figured time was running out. (I even ran across what turned out to be an incorrect spoiler watching a ZeroPage Twitch stream the other week. So nowhere is safe. Idiots who think they're funny or just want to ruin the film for others abound on the internet.) Also, my internal clock is all messed up from work, so being up until 3 AM is kind-of unavoidable at the moment. But that's another blog entry for another time. (But if you want a hint... it's this time of year again.) Anyway, onto the movie review. And just fair warning: there won't be much to it. Because while I'd like to describe it more, I don't want to risk giving anything away. Even minor things that might detract from some of the many fun, satisfying moments in this movie. It should come as no spoiler by now that Endgame is intended to be the conclusion to the storyline that has weaved through the MCU movies since the first Iron Man film, which kicked the whole thing off 11 years ago. And the only thing I could think of at first when writing this review was just to type "wow" over and over again. Because that was my response watching the movie. I'm glad I went in with no spoilers, because even though there are some sort-of vague hints that can be gleaned about what maybe the movie is about, I really had no idea where they were going with it, basically right from the first few minutes. And that kept up through the whole film, right through to the end. Even things I suspected might be coming, were so well done, that I was still fully swept up in it anyway. For me, this film hit all the right notes. Humor, emotion, action, and payoff. And the scale of it at times is... incredible. It makes Infinity War pale in comparison. This is a blockbuster, summer, popcorn movie, full stop. This is the popcorn movie. The Russo brothers were asked to describe it in one word, and they said, "cathartic". Yeah, that works. I'd go with "satisfying". If I were to sum it up in a sentence, it would be: What a journey. Now, did I like everything about it? Well, maybe not everything. And also there were some characters I'd like to have seen more of. But the core Avengers all got their moments to really shine here, and in that regards it was completely satisfying. If you've seen and liked any of the MCU movies, you need to go see this. Now, if you think too hard about some elements of the plot, your brain will probably break. But really, this is the kind of movie where you go and shut off the analytical part of your brain, and just go enjoy it. I'll give you one minor semi-spoiler of sorts, since it doesn't actually tell you anything about the movie itself: I really, thoroughly enjoyed this movie, on many levels. It's a love-letter to comic books, and superheroes, and everything that makes them amazing and wonderful. I haven't had a movie experience quite like this since Mad Max: Fury Road. So that being the case... Avengers: Endgame gets an 11/10. Go see it. Before someone spoils it for you. And since this seems an appropriate place for them, here are links to my previous MCU movie reviews. I've been at this for awhile now (I never did review Thor: The Dark World though): Summer Full 'o Movies pt. 2 - Iron Man Summer Full 'o Movies pt. 5 - The Incredible Hulk Summer Full o' Superheroes pt. 2 - Iron Man 2 Summer Full o' Superheroes pt. 3 - Thor Summer Full o' Superheroes pt. 6 - Captain America (Marvel's) The Avengers - Spoiler-free review (first Spoiler-free movie review!) Iron Man 3 - Spoiler-free review Captain America: The Winter Soldier - Spoiler-free review Guardians of the Galaxy - Spoiler-free review Avengers: Age of Ultron - Spoiler-free movie review (plus free bonus rant!) Ant-Man - Spoiler-free movie review Captain America: Civil War - Spoiler-free movie review Doctor Strange - Spoiler-free movie review Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 - Spoiler-free review Spider-Man: Homecoming - Spoiler-free review Thor: Ragnarok - Spoiler-free review Black Panther - Spoiler-free review Avengers: Infinity War - Spoiler-free review Ant-Man and The Wasp - Spoiler-free review Captain Marvel - Spoiler-free review

Marvel has a knack for making superhero movies. And by knack, I mean they've pretty-much got it figured out. Of course, when you think about it, they probably should by now. But nothing is a given. I should note here I'm talking about the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) movies, not Marvel movies made by Sony or 20th Century Fox. Those have been, at best, inconsistent. If you think about how many truly bad superhero movies there are out there, it's impressive that Marvel Studios really hasn't had any outright bombs. No Catwoman. No Elektra. No Batman and Robin. No Spider-Man 3. No Green Lantern. No Fantastic Four. No Fant4stic Four. They haven't had anything that I'd classify as "awful". For as many films as they've done, that's impressive. Sure, some have been just "meh" (Thor: The Dark World, I'm looking at you), and some may have not performed spectacularly at the box office (Ant-Man and a few others), but they've still all made money, and they all have one other thing in common: despite their flaws, they all have at least some compelling, likable characters in them. I think this is what separates Marvel's movies from DC's, and is what separated what Stan Lee did in the early 60's, from what other comic books were doing at the time. Make the characters behind the heroes compelling and interesting first, then what they do as a hero will follow suit. With the Aquaman and Wonder Woman movies, DC got it right. They made the characters interesting: who they were, their personalities, their stories. They got the casting right, and wrote the characters behind the superheroics in such a way that we could relate to them and like them. To some degree, they did this with the Flash in Justice League as well, but so far they've failed to make either Superman or Batman likable, because neither Clark Kent nor Bruce Wayne is particularly likable. That doesn't mean they have to be without flaws - Tony Stark is a very flawed character, but ultimately, Stark is redeemable, relatable, and chooses to be a hero for the right reasons. The fact that he's Iron Man is secondary to who he really is as Tony Stark. Where DC has gone wrong is that Batman is an unlikable jerk, because that's what Bruce Wayne is. Superman is distant, aloof and unrelatable because that's what Clark Kent is. It's how they're written, casted and acted. Oh yeah... and they kill people, too, which is counter to who they're supposed to be at their cores. Sure, it was cool watching Batman beat up a room full of henchmen in Batman vs. Superman, but one cool scene does not a good character make. In the comics, Batman is already a great character. So is Superman. They've been great onscreen at times, too. Batman: The Animated Series is still the high-water mark for Batman, and Christopher Reeves is still the definitive Superman. When it was recently (finally) announced that Ben Affleck was done as Batman, I was glad to hear it. Hopefully they can reboot the character and do it right this time. I'm hoping DC will recast Superman, too. DC has the ability to make great superhero films. They have the iconic characters to do it with. They just need to stop overthinking it, and go back to who the characters are, and why they're compelling and have been for some 80 years now. Stop trying to "make a blockbuster". Just tell good stories. The rest will follow. Right. So what does this have to do with Captain Marvel? Well, I didn't know much about the character going into the movie. I knew a little bit about her from when I collected comics, back when she was Ms. Marvel, and (a pre-X-Men) Rogue stole her powers and memories. At that point Carol Danvers became just sort of on the periphery of mainstream comics. She became Binary for awhile, with the powers apparently of 1's and 0's. Or a binary star. Something like that. Anyway, the name Captain Marvel belonged to a completely different character then. By the time Carol Danvers became Captain Marvel, I had long since stopped reading comics. I would suspect also, that outside of regular comic book readers, few people knew of her, even though she had become a very popular character in recent years. For me, the same had applied to a number of other Marvel characters. I had only passing familiarity with Dr. Strange, even less with Black Panther, and absolutely none with Guardians of the Galaxy. But all of those movies managed to draw me in, and made me interested in those characters. This is what Marvel has done so effectively since Iron Man. When the MCU started, those characters were the leftovers they had after selling off all of their most valuable characters to other studios. Hard to believe that now, given the success of the movies. Harder still to believe, is that there have been over 20 of these movies. So, as with other Marvel movies before it, last Monday I went to see Captain Marvel without any real expectations. Besides my unfamiliarity with the character, the trailers didn't really do much to convey her personality. It wasn't until I saw Brie Larson in several interviews that I got a sense of her own personality and humor, and began to see the potential in what her character might be. She was engaging, sincere, and genuinely funny. Especially when she teamed up with Samuel L. Jackson during their press junket. The two of them clearly have a lot of fun together. That relationship shows through brilliantly in the movie, too. They have a fun, natural chemistry together. It's almost a buddy movie when the two of them are onscreen. But make no mistake - this is Brie Larson's movie, and she's a, well... a Marvel. I really enjoyed watching Larson in this movie - a lot. Clearly, she had fun making it. But also, she clearly put an incredible amount of effort and dedication into the role. The emotional intensity she brings to the screen, the physicality, and the humanity all really make her character compelling (there's that word again), likable, and heroic. Marvel doing what Marvel does best: good characters, good casting, good acting and directing. And obviously, despite some trolling, audiences have caught on. Earning over $500,000,000 in less than one week, the score is: Captain Marvel 1, Internet Trolls 0. The rest of the cast is on point as well, but the standout is Jackson. He's playing a much younger Nick Fury here, early in his S.H.I.E.L.D. career (ca. 1995), less world-weary, and learning of all of this superhero and space alien stuff for the first time. It's a great, fresh take on a familiar character, and a lot of fun to watch. And this has to be said: the de-aging used on him in this film is seamless. I was going to use some other superlative like "incredible" or "astounding" but that makes it seem like it was something that was amazing to watch, and that's just the point - it wasn't. It was just... seamless. He never looked weird, or off-putting, or anything. He was just a younger Samuel L. Jackson. Now, admittedly, for someone in his 70's, he looks pretty ageless anyway, so I'm sure that helped. But in a film packed with all sorts of big-budget effects, the one that was just there and didn't draw any attention to itself was the most impressive. Another impressive effect were the Skrulls. Shape-shifters have been in science fiction for decades. But usually, that effect is done with a "morphing" effect, or something which doesn't really show how they actually change shapes. The closest to doing that is probably Mystique in the X-Men movies, but even that is a bit more sleight-of-hand. For the Skrulls though - when you see them shape-shifting close up, you can see them... well, sort of turning their skin inside-out. It looks like a biological (and not at all comfortable) process, and is the most effective way I've seen of doing this sort of thing. It's really cool, because it adds a new level of believability to an old trope. The effects throughout the film are excellent, which by now you almost just expect going into these films. There may have been one or two things which could've been done better, but nothing that was distracting, and no film is perfect anyway. Although one thing which has bugged me for years, and continues to bug me: colored contact lenses. Yeah... it makes someone look like an alien if they have yellow irises. But the problem is that a real iris is nearly flat and behind the cornea, and a contact lens is convex and sits on the surface of the cornea. The end result is that the eye never looks right - the iris and pupil sit on the surface of the eye, and light hits it completely wrong. It would look better to digitally recolor the irises instead. It'd be more expensive, but it would look more believable. There are some fun action sequences throughout the film - fights, chases, and a particularly excellent escape sequence where we get an early glimpse of how fierce and resourceful Captain Marvel can be. Throughout it all, there's just the right mix of humor, and the chemistry between Larson and Jackson is always fun to watch. Oh, and there's a cat in the movie, too. I understand that people like cats. The movie is replete with 90's references, and there are a lot of in-jokes, period music and details for audiences to appreciate (although it's weird to think of a movie set in the 90's as being a period piece...). There's a particularly moving tribute to Stan Lee as well. Excelsior, Stan! The overall plot of the movie probably isn't anything groundbreaking, although there are a few welcomed twists to it. But the real heart of the film is about Carol Danvers. Watching her story unfold, seeing her discover who she is, and who she becomes. Again, Marvel comics, and the best of their movies, are about the characters, and they really deliver here. I had fun watching this movie, and am considering seeing it again in the theaters (which I rarely do). Especially in contrast to some of the heavier Marvel films, it's nice to watch something that's fun and uplifting. Again, Marvel has a knack for these films, and a large part of that is how diverse they make them. From a World War II movie to an espionage thriller, from a science fiction romp to a heist comedy, from the craziness of Thor: Ragnarok to the drama of Avengers: Infinity War, and now a 90's-era alien invasion flick. Take notes, DC - I'm hoping the rumors are true, and the next Batman film will focus on him as the world's greatest detective. For now, I'm really looking forward to seeing Captain Marvel again in Avengers: Endgame. I really liked Captain Marvel. I got lost in the entertainment of it, and the strength and appeal of the lead characters proved Marvel hasn't lost its touch. Some elements of the story were a little predictable, but I still enjoyed watching it all unfold. There are a lot of people out there who are happy to see Captain Marvel because it's the first Marvel movie with a female superhero in the lead role; and given the wealth of strong female characters in Marvel's pantheon, it's certainly overdue. But I liked Captain Marvel because it was a fun movie with great characters. If that wasn't the case, it wouldn't be the success that it is. And as long as they keep churning these out, I'll go see 'em. Captain Marvel gets a 9/10. Get an extra-large popcorn. And be sure to stay through the end credits.

Okay, everybody sing the ! Aquaman, Aquaman, Does whatever a tuna can. Swims around, talks to fish When he walks, his feet squish Look out! Here's comes the Aquaman! Is he strong? Probably But he has to swim through fish pee Can he ride a seahorse? No he can't, they're too small. Hey there – There goes the Aquaman In the ocean deep If a boat is around When they fall overboard He'll make sure they don't drown Aquaman, Aquaman It's green-tights-wearing Aquaman Not first choice in a jam Unless your foe is clam Oh yeah - he has a magic spear, oh, You're favorite fourth-string hero Here comes the Aquaman! Pretty sure that's how it goes. A couple of weeks ago I went to see Aquaman. I didn't have a lot of interest in the movie when it was announced, because, well, DC films are usually pretty awful (except for Wonder Woman). But one of the few bright spots in Justice League was watching the fun Jason Momoa was clearly having as Aquaman. Rather than being the punching bag of Robot Chicken, (let's face it, the 70's animated Aquaman was the sea-themed TV superhero ever), this Aquaman was fast, powerful, funny, and kicked butt. But would that character translate to a solo feature film? After all, the CEO of Warner Bros. once said, "...the worlds of DC are very different... they're steeped in realism, and they're a little bit edgier than Marvel's movies." Yeah... like that worked. Well, if there's one thing that can be said about Aquaman, is that it's a movie not steeped in realism. Somewhere along the line, the filmmakers probably came to the conclusion that the idea of "realism" and "vast undersea empires that nobody on the surface has any idea they exist" probably didn't mesh all that well. Aquaman is a bonkers movie. It doesn't even pretend to be realistic. It's not so much that it doesn't care, but rather it goes out of its way to be ridiculous. This is fantasy. It's a comic book brought to life with no regard for realism at all because there's nothing realistic about the subject matter. Even for comic books the whole premise is silly. Early in the film Aquaman rescues a sinking sub by swimming under it, and pushing it up out of the water. Somehow. Nuclear subs displace on the order of 48,000 tons of water. But that's no problem for Aquaman - he just pushes on it, and up it goes. His hands should just punch through the hull. I don't even think he kicks his feet when he swims. Maybe he's psionically making the water around him do all the work. But it really doesn't matter how his powers work, because the movie just lays it out there, and expects you to accept it. If you're onboard with that, then you'll probably be onboard with the rest of the movie. After all, nobody asks how Superman flies. I should emphasize that this isn't a criticism of the film... it's merely a fact. That's what the film is. This is the universe it presents, and those are the rules that apply within it. Only the flimsiest of explanations are given for why things happen. Atlanteans can breath water, because a thing happened. Atlantis collapsed, because a thing happened. Aquaman has a magic trident, because it's a magic trident. In a way, this film is a bit like Thor in that we're given this preposterous world populated with preposterous beings, and that's just the way it is. And to the filmmakers' credit, once they establish how this world works, as wacky as it is, they're consistent with it. It's hard to break rules when you don't have any. Fortunately, Aquaman is so bonkers that it's an entertaining movie. Again, Jason Momoa is a lot of fun to watch. The visual effects are crazy. The sea creatures are insane. The scale of the battles is epic. The costumes are ridiculous. Amber Heard looks like Mrs. Ronald McDonald. The action scenes aren't just over the top, they're over over the top. It's funny, it's silly, it's ludicrous. But it's a fun ride. The story? Inconsequential. The villains? Forgettable. There is no logic to anything that happens in the film. But if you go into the theater with the attitude of just wanting to watch a movie for the sake of watching a movie, you'll do just fine. It unashamedly rips off more films than I was able to count: Star Wars (pick any of them), Tron, Close Encounters, 2001, Blade Runner, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jaws (all of them - or for that matter, any movie that's ever had a shark in it), probably every Marvel movie, and so many, many more. In a way, you're really getting your money's worth, because you get to see so many other films that they borrowed from. This is meant to be escapist entertainment, so don't expect anything particularly deep (pun intended ). Apart from pointing out how much humans pollute the oceans, there's little of substance here. Of course, rather than using their advanced technology to actually help humanity solve our problems, the Atlanteans stay hidden away in their vast, underwater cities complaining about it. Even at the end of the film, humans still don't believe Atlantis exists, despite everyone already having known about Aquaman because of the events in Justice League. None of it makes much sense, so just try not to think about it. Just enjoy the spectacle, because it has plenty of that. Aquaman is worth seeing in the theater, because of the scope and scale of everything. It's completely ridiculous. It doesn't make any sense. But that's okay, because it's a comic book movie, and it makes Aquaman a pretty cool character. Plus, based on the trailers, it's apparently setting us up for the new tone for the DC Universe: Wacky! Aquaman gets 7/10, because... why not? Now if they can just fix Batman and Superman. Does whatever a tuna can...get it? Tuna can! Sometimes, I crack me up.

I'm not even sure Ralph Breaks the Internet is still in theaters. I saw this back in November, but only now have had the time to write up a short review for it. Actually, I've got three movies to write reviews for, hence the need to keep them all short. What do you mean, you'll "believe it when you see it"? I don't always write needlessly long-winded, rambling, circumlocutory reviews. And yes, I did look that last one up - I felt there would be additional humor if I made a counterpoint to my own statement within the statement itself. Padding the beginning of this out implies to the reader, "Here he goes again" when in fact, I do plan on making these three reviews more concise. Mostly because I don't feel like writing long reviews today. I'm afraid this newfound (and temporary) brevity has less to do with giving readers a break, and more to do with my own laziness. The point is... I'll be brief. Right. So on with the first one. I really loved the first Wreck-It Ralph movie. Mostly because it was a loving tribute to video games, and more importantly, video arcades, which are now all-but-gone, and were the places I hung out with my friends in high school and college. It was a great nostalgia trip, and a funny movie. I saw Ralph Breaks the Internet at work, which may seem odd if you haven't read some of my reviews before (I work here), but being closely tied to the animation industry, we get special screenings there from time to time in our theater. In this case, co-director and alumnus Rich Moore was there to do a Q&A and introduce the film. Seeing an animated film with 120+ animation students is the ideal audience, since if it's a good film, their reactions are going to be really strong because of their level of appreciation for the work. That was the case here. They cheered, laughed, applauded, and really seemed to love the movie (particularly Gal Gadot's character). Being in that room, it's hard for their enthusiasm to not be infectious. But while I liked much of the film, a lot of it just sort of fell flat for me. It's certainly got its funny moments (including some choice parodies of Disney itself), but I just didn't connect with it like I did the first film, or as much as the students did. The reason? Well, this film wasn't made for me. It's made for the current generation who have grown up on (and are immersed in) the internet and its culture. Even though I've been on the internet since 1994, I don't live there. I'm not into social media. I don't keep up on memes. I don't do online gaming. So while I understood the humor in the film - I didn't connect with it. The students loved it. But I think the real problem I had with the film goes deeper than being generational. Wreck-It Ralph was a movie about Ralph being on a journey of personal growth. He had a character arc where he significantly changed over the course of the film. He learned what his true worth was, and went from selfish to selfless. Other characters had arcs too - Felix became more understanding of Ralph's feelings, Vanellope learned her true potential and realized her dream of being a racer, the Nicelanders learned to be accepting of Ralph, Calhoun moved past the hurt of her previous relationship and found love with Felix. The movie was packed with character development. Not so much in the sequel though. The movie focused almost exclusively on Ralph and Vanellope and their quest to go find something on the internet. It wasn't driven by character development, but rather a MacGuffin. And even though there is some character development with Vanellope, it's all very superficial. As a character, she doesn't really change. She goes through a journey of discovery of sorts, but it pales in comparison to the one she already went through in the first film. Ralph is largely wasted in the sequel, as, if anything, his character actually regresses in order to have some sort of arc forced upon him in order to learn something by the end of the movie. For the most part, he's just used as a point of ridicule where he ends up involved in various internet memes to propel the main quest along. Felix and Calhoun are completely wasted, get very little screen time, and are given almost nothing to do. It's not that Ralph Breaks the Internet is a bad film... it does have some really funny moments, and is generally entertaining and visually impressive. The ending is, frankly, sappy and overly sentimental. Considering the effort that they put into the climax of the movie, I had hoped they'd find a more exciting way to resolve it than what they did. Ralph Breaks the Internet is, if anything, a missed opportunity. Or rather, several. One thing they really missed, was an opportunity to bring in Tron as a side character. After all, Disney owns Tron. The arcade game makes a brief cameo, and Tron himself is called out by name, but seriously - couldn't they get Bruce Boxleitner to come in and even read a few lines for the movie? How much fun would it have been for Tron to be the straight-man in this film, accompanying Ralph and Vanellope through the internet? Discovering that outside of his game, his light disc only has the properties of a Frisbee? It would be a great running joke as his useless Frisbee repeatedly, harmlessly bounced off things, and failed to get them out of several jams. Finally, Tron would get fed up, and bring something over from his game that really worked: a tank! "I fight for the USER!" Go get 'em, Tron! (sigh) But the biggest missed opportunity, in my opinion, was to make the move about Felix. From the very first time I saw Wreck-It Ralph, one line stood out in Ralph's opening monologue that immediately jumped out at me as a film that I wanted to see: "So yeah, naturally, the guy with the name Fix It Felix is the good guy. He's nice enough as good guys go - definitely fixes stuff really well. But uh, if you've got a magic hammer from your father, how hard can it be?" That's the story I wanted to see. How did that happen? What's Felix's relationship with his dad? Does a Fix It Felix Sr. game get rolled into the arcade? Was Fix-It Felix Jr. more popular? Was Sr.'s game a flop? Is Felix embarrassed about his dad? Is his dad resentful about his son's success? Or was Sr. the popular game, and Jr. was only popular at Litwak's? What is the quest that they need to go on? Are they mending their relationship? Or maybe the game arrives without Sr. in it, and they have to go on a quest to find him for the game to be restored. There are so many possibilities here for really good stories, and Felix's story is the one that needs to be told - everyone else had their backstory told in the first film. Then Ralph and Vanellope could be the ones going on the side quest this time. A huge, missed opportunity. All that said (and yes, this counts as a "short" review, relatively speaking), Ralph Breaks the Internet was a bit of a disappointment to me, despite the enthusiasm of the audience I was with. Wait for it to show up on Netflix. Or the Disney Channel. Or rent it. Maybe you'll like it more than me, if you're more immersed in the internet than I am. Ralph Breaks the Internet gets a 6/10.

When I first heard Sony was making an animated Spider-Man film, my first thought was, "Ugh. Really? Have they learned nothing from their past failures with Spider-Man? Why can't they just leave creative control of the character to Marvel, and take whatever money Marvel gives them?" Then, when I heard it would feature the Miles Morales version of the character (from the Ultimate Universe), I was even less interested. Even though I knew people really liked that character, I had stopped reading comics some 20 years before the character was created, so I had no connection to him. Peter Parker, as far as I was concerned, was Spider-Man. Then, after the second or so trailer, I thought, "This has a pretty cool look to it." Better than the typical animated comic book fare. Early positive reviews, and the fact that one of the co-directors is an alumnus from where I work, sold me on the idea of seeing it. So while I was on vacation over our winter break, I did. Now, I almost saw it in 3D. But 99% of the time, 3D is less-than-impressive to me. So since there were more 2D showings nearby, we saw it in 2D. In hindsight, maybe I should've seen it in 3D. But either way, I'm glad I saw it. Because Sony Pictures Animation (not to be confused with their live-action arm who made their other Spider-Man films), absolutely knocked it out-of-the-park. Into the Spider-Verse is a lot of fun. It also has totally unique, and at times breathtaking animation. It's visual style is incredible. It probably looks great in 3D. It's probably one of the few films that really could. The animation is difficult to describe - it's mostly CG animation, but with some traditional animation, and unique texture mapping that gives it a very distinct, illustrative look. This doesn't look like your typical rubbery/plasticky CG animation. This embraces its medium of origin: comic books. Not just embraces, but relishes, basks in, and fully celebrates comic books, using textures reminiscent of Ben Day dots, but in a way that works in CG, rather than on a flat, printed page. Besides the visual look, the animation itself is stunning. There's probably some performance capture mixed in there, but everything is so nicely stylized it never intrudes. There's also just some straight-up cartoony animation as well, and somehow, everything merges together into a cohesive whole. It's unlike any other animated film (or film, for that matter) that I've seen. Visuals are all well and good, but what makes this movie work, or outright shine, are the characters. Marvel made its name because when Stan Lee created characters, he brought to life characters that were interesting as people. Not just as superheroes. The people behind the masks made the characters compelling and relatable, and that's what Sony Pictures Animation has captured here so well. The film centers around Miles Morales and his origin as (one) Spider-Man, and if this is how his character is in the comic books, then I can see why people like him so much. He's his own Spider-Man, with his own family, backstory, issues, and apart from a similar set of powers, isn't derivative of Peter Parker's Spider-Man. They're as different as two characters, or two people, can be. Bound by a common accident, but otherwise completely different. The basic story of Into the Spider-Verse centers around Miles, and other Spider-characters (including Peter Parker's Spider-Man) who are brought together to fight a common foe (of course). Without going into detail, suffice it to say they're all very different characters than the Spider-Man you're used to. Some are more serious, some are played more for laughs, but each are entertaining and engaging in their own way. Stylistically, they're all very different too, as if the movie knows they were all pulled out of different genres of comic books, and is perfectly okay with that. The animation styles for each matches who they are. Given how different they are, it probably shouldn't work. In a live-action film it would be a hard sell. But in an animated film, you can get away with it. Everything is blended perfectly. Cartoons are a wonderful thing. There's great action, great humor, and genuine heartfelt moments. Some of the Spider-characters have less to do than others, but that's okay. The filmmakers knew who to focus on, and when. There's nothing wrong with having some comedy relief, and it's far better when a film like this uses it appropriately - as a break in the action, to lighten a moment, or just for sheer entertainment value - rather than overdoing it and detracting from a main character. Or worse still, using a sidekick as a crutch when the main characters are weak (I'm looking at you - Aladdin, Lion King, Pocahontas, Hunchback of Notre Dame, A Bug's Life, and more other animated films than I can count). The voice casting and acting throughout is excellent. There's not a weak link in the bunch (and Nicolas Cage was a particularly inspired choice). And the post-credits scene is my favorite so far of any movie. Period. Top that, Avengers: Endgame. I don't want to go into any more detail about the movie, other than to say go see it. Set your expectations aside, and just go. It's fun. The animation is a rare, unique treat. The characters are compelling. I'd recommend seeing it in a theater, for the sheer visual experience of it. Maybe even in 3D - and I rarely recommend that. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse stands on its own, apart from any other superhero film, animated or otherwise. If you love comic books, see it. If you love animation, see it. If you just want to kill a couple of hours with a bucket of popcorn, see it. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse gets a 10/10.

Well, I've voted. So instead of sitting at home watching insipid coverage of the results, I've decided to catch Wreck-It Ralph in 3-D. Normally I avoid 3-D screenings, but since this is true 3-D and not some half-baked conversion I figured I'd fork over the extra money for the privilege of wearing an extra pair of glasses over my own for a couple of hours. Speaking of forks and half-baked, at the moment I'm at Johnny Rocket's, waiting for my dinner to arrive. It should be along any moment now, so I'll pick this up again once I'm in the theater. _________________ Well, so much for dinner. They were pretty swamped, which probably explained the delay and less-than-piping-hot food. But now I'm in the theater, and with about 20 minutes to go, I literally have the place to myself. I would have expected at least a few other early people, but this is strange, especially for an 8:00 PM showing. But it is a Tuesday night, election night, and Wreck-It Ralph isn't exactly Skyfall, y'know (which they're already selling tickets for). For animated films I try and avoid early shows to avoid kids, so I considered hitting the 10:35 PM show instead, but thought that most people would be hanging around home watching election coverage. I just didn't expect it to work this well! (15 minutes to go... still the only one here.) So I guess I might as well waste some more time typing. This is the first significant typing I've done on my iPhone 5, and I'm just not used to the different width yet (landscape mode). I keep hitting the wrong keys, and auto-correct hasn't quite figured that out yet. Guess I need more practice, but I rarely text. 10 minutes to go. Still just me. Maybe if I ask nicely they'll just start the movie now. Whenever I go to movies (usually with others) we try to guess how many trailers they're going to run. Since I'm by myself (quite literally) I'll just say... six. Should be quite a few holiday movies, maybe one or two for next summer, and inevitably, several I've never heard of. Maybe seven... nah. Already said six. I'm hoping Ralph is a good movie. Generally I've heard good things about it from people at Disney. There's a positive vibe about the film at the studio I haven't seen in a long time. It made good money at the box office its opening weekend. Good thing they got it out before Skyfall hit. Yeah, so... still just me. About one minute before showtime, so time to post this and shut off my phone. Not that there's anyone here to complain. _________________ (A few hours pass...) That was a fun film! I wasn't sure what to expect with Wreck-It Ralph, since the trailers seemed to be pointing the film in a pretty obvious direction. However I'm pleased to say that the film took me in directions I wasn't expecting, and the film played out much differently than how I thought was going to. The movie takes place in a video arcade that's been in business for over 30 years (so you know that this is something that can only happen in the movies…), and centers around the denizens of the games that occupy the arcade. In this case, the game is Fix-It Felix, Jr., a mix of Donkey Kong and Crazy Climber, whose antagonist is Wreck-It Ralph, a giant of a character whose job for those 30 years is to wreck the same building over and over. When Ralph tires of his lot in life, we get to follow him into Game Central Station - a massive power strip all of the arcade games are plugged into (again… try not too hard to think about it - just enjoy the ride). Here, after hours, all of the characters of the games can mix and mingle. It's also where we learn some of the rules that apply to this world - you're not allowed to violate your programming, jump to other games, and if you die outside of your game - you die forever. No extra lives. We also find characters who had their games unplugged, and now wander Game Central Station homeless. At the same time it's both funny and wistful, especially for those of us who lived through the heyday and crash of arcades in the early 80's. There's a passage of time montage showing the games changing over the years, and I couldn't help but wish I could stop time and go visit that arcade when some of my favorite games flashed by. And oh, the games! I lost count of the games I recognized. There were a number of fictitious games there for the purposes of the film, but plenty of real games as well. And while I could nitpick about some of the cabinet artwork not being dead-on (I'm looking at you, Frogger), I suspect that was dictated more by the license holders than a design decision of Disney's, since they so often got so many other things right. Now, if it was just a nostalgic walk through an arcade, it wouldn't be much of a film. But the movie goes beyond that, and creates a fun world where video game characters come alive, and those characters are the heart of the film. Ralph's journey takes on unexpected twists, and along the way draws in characters from his own game and others as well, most notably Vanellope von Schweetz, voiced by Sarah Silverman. She's a character from the game Sugar Rush (think San Francisco Rush but with everything made out of candy), who, like Ralph, has become alienated from her own game. Their relationship is a lot of fun, and really makes the film work. It's a rare Disney film where the central characters are the most interesting, but they've managed to pull it off here. Felix (Jack McBrayer) is also a lot of fun with his "aww shucks" Richie Cunningham-esque naiveté, as is Sergeant Calhoun (Jane Lynch), a tough-talking space marine from a modern day first-person shooter. They manage to mix and match these characters from different eras of videogames very nicely, with Felix's characters often moving in very stilted, abrupt poses, and making the different videogame worlds all look unique, yet still believable as being somehow connected. The visual design of the film is first-rate. There's a wealth of detail, especially in Sugar Rush, and more candy-related puns than you could shake a Pixy Stix at. The characters are well designed and animated (particularly those in Sugar Rush), and they managed to do a good job of bringing some classic 2-D videogame characters into the 3-D world. The film is a visual treat, as you get the sci-fi world of Hero's Duty, the candy-overload of Sugar Rush, and countless nods to video games, characters, 8-bit artwork, and more. The best way I can describe it, is that Wreck-It Ralph is a love-letter to video games. There's a definite air of nostalgia to it, and countless details that long-time gamers will appreciate. There are a ton of moments where you'll be going back and freeze-framing the Blu-ray disc in order to pick out details of many scenes and set pieces in the film. There are so many fun touches in the film that to spill any one of them here would just spoil the fun. So go see the film and keep your eyes peeled. I plan on seeing it again, and I rarely do that anymore. And be sure to stay all the way through the credits for one final video game treat. The stereoscopic 3-D worked very well, in that it simply worked and wasn't obtrusive or annoying. 3-D movies tend to "flatten out" for me as I watch them, where I'm less aware of the 3-D as the movie goes along. Maybe that's just me, but I think that's how 3-D should work - where we just take it for granted. It shouldn't "jump out" at you, anymore than anything else in real life does. It should help define space and depth, and that's it. So from that standpoint, I thought it was just fine. The end credits were particularly effective in 3-D, however, because of their design. I can't say Wreck-It Ralph gains anything by being in 3-D, but it doesn't lose anything either. So I guess that's a recommendation of sorts. Maybe I'll see it in 2-D next time. Showing ahead of Wreck-It Ralph was the new Disney short film Paperman. This is really an extraordinary little short film, and more in keeping with a lot of the short films I see at work than anything you might expect from Disney. This worked very well in 3-D, as it was an interesting mix of CG and traditional animation, and the added depth at times was very well integrated into the film. My only gripe is that there was a fake film or paper grain applied to the whole thing which "floated" over the image the whole time, so it was like watching it through a slightly dirty window whenever my eyes focused at that level. But that was a minor gripe - it's a very cool short film. Probably would bore little kids to tears though. But I really applaud Disney for stepping back into make an interesting short for the sake of animation as an art form, rather than just trying to make something funny or commercial. (And for what it's worth, it is funny, but in a sophisticated way.) Anyway, go see Wreck-It Ralph. If you like videogames, especially arcade games, you owe it to yourself to see it. It's just a really fun, neat film to watch. There are some genuinely funny moments in it, and some heartfelt ones as well. Good characters, good animation, good fun. Also - try to see it with an audience. Only three other people were in the theater with me, and although it made for a nice, private screening, it would've been more fun with a bunch of other people laughing along. Wreck-It Ralph gets a 9/10. Oh, and there were seven trailers. Including one for this train-wreck-in-the-making. Ick. Seriously... does this look good to anybody?

EDIT (5/26/2013): Whole collection of DVD Movies and TV series for sale. Majority are widescreen, post 1990 release date (with a few stragglers pre-1990 or full screen). Prices start at $2 a piece, with a few boxed sets and TV shows listed between $3 and $8. Shipping prices for first class (up to 13 oz, 1-3 dvd variety) from $2.00 - $4.00 in a padded envelope or box. Anything over 13 oz will ship priority mail in a flat rate envelope or box, starting at $5.50 (4+ dvds depending on variety). Prices vary depending on number of discs, inserts, type of dvd case, etc. We will weigh each order for precise shipping prices. FOR SALE LIST Price Title (Edition) -- Year -- Screen Type -- # Discs $2.00 -- 187 -- 1997 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- 10 Things I Hate About You -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- 13 Going on 30 (Special Edition) -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- 13th Warrior -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- 15 Minutes (InfiniFilm) -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- 27 Dresses -- 2008 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- 3 Ninjas -- 1992 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- 40-year-old Virgin (Unrated Version) -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- 50 First Dates (Special Edition) -- 2004 -- FS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- 61* -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- 6th Day -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- 6th Man -- 1997 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- 8 Mile -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- A-Team, The -- 2010 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- About a Boy -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- About Schmidt -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Accepted -- 2006 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Ace Ventura Pet Detective -- 1994 -- WS -- 1-Disc SOLD -- Ace Ventura When Nature Calls -- 1995 -- Dual -- 1-Disc SOLD -- Aeon Flux (Special Collector's Edition) -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Agent Cody Banks (Special Edition) -- 2003 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Air Force One -- 1997 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Airheads -- 1994 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Almost Famous -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Along Came A Spider -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- America's Sweethearts -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc SOLD -- American History X -- 1998 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- American Wedding (Extended Unrated Party Edition) -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Anaconda -- 1997 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Anchorman (Unrated, Uncut & Uncalled For! Version) -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Angel Eyes -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Anger Management (Special Edition) -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Antitrust (Special Edition) -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Anywhere But Here -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Arlington Road -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Artificial Intelligence (Special Edition) -- 2001 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- As Good As It Gets -- 1997 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- As Good As It Gets -- 1997 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Assualt on Precinct 13 -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Astronaut's Wife -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Atlantis -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $3.00 -- Aviator -- 2004 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Babes in Toyland -- 1961 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Baby Mama -- 2008 -- WS -- 1-Disc SOLD -- Back to the Future Trilogy (French / Canadian Version) -- 1985, 89, 90 -- WS -- 3-Discs $4.00 -- Bad Boys I & II Set (Boxed Set) -- 1995, 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Bad Company -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Bad News Bears (Special Collector's Edition) -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Bandits (Special Edition) -- 2001 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Basic -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Be Cool -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc SOLD -- Beautiful Mind, A (Awards Edition) -- 2001 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- BenchWarmers -- 2006 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Better Sex Through Yoga -- 2003 -- FS -- 3-Discs $2.00 -- Bewitched (Special Edition) -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Big Daddy -- 1999 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Big Lebowski -- 1998 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Biker Boyz -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Billy Elliot -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Black Hawk Down -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Blade (New Line Platinum Series) -- 1998 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Blade II -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Blade Trinity (New Line Platinum Series, Unrated Version) -- 2004 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Blast From the Past -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Bless the Child -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Blue Streak (Special Edition) -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Boondock Saints -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Bounce (Exclusive 2-Disc Set) -- 2000 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Bourne Supremacy -- 2004 -- FS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Bourne Ultimatum -- 2007 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Braveheart -- 1995 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Break Up, The -- 2006 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Bridget Jones's Diary (Miramax Collector's Series) -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Bring It On (Collector's Edition) -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Bruce Almighty -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Bulletproof -- 1996 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Butterfly Effect (InfiniFilm) -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Catch and Release -- 2006 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Catwoman -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Cellular (New Line Platinum Series) -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Changeling -- 2008 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Changing Lanes -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc SOLD -- Chappelle's Show - Season 1 -- 2003 -- FS -- 2-Discs SOLD -- Chappelle's Show - Season 2 -- 2004 -- FS -- 3-Discs $2.00 -- Charlie's Angels (Special Edition) -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Chicago -- 2002 -- FS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Chocolat (Miramax Collector's Series) -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian -- 2008 -- WS -- 1-Disc $3.00 -- Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (Special Collector's Edition) -- 2005 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Chronicles of Riddick (Unrated Director's Cut) -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Chronicles of Riddick: Pitch Black -- 2000 -- FS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Cider House Rules (Miramax Collector's Series) -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Cinderella Man -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- City of Angels (Special Edition) -- 1998 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Clue -- 1985 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Collateral -- 2004 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Collateral Damage -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Confidence -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Constantine -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Core -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Count of Monte Cristo -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Covenant -- 2006 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Coyote Ugly -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Cradle 2 the Grave -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc SOLD -- Craft (Special Edition) -- 1996 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Crank -- 2006 -- FS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Crash -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Crazy/Beautiful -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Da Vinci Code (Special Edition) -- 2006 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Daredevil -- 2003 -- FS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Deep Blue Sea -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- déjà vu -- 2006 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Departed -- 2006 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Derailed (Unrated Version) -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Descent (Original Unrated Cut) -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Devil Wears Prada -- 2006 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star (Special Collector's Edition) -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Die Hard IV: Live Free or Die Hard -- 2007 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Divine Secrets of the Ya Ya Sisterhood -- 2002 -- FS -- 1-Disc SOLD -- Dodgeball -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Domestic Disturbance -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Don't Say a Word -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Double Jeopardy -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Down to Earth -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Dreamcatcher -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Drive Me Crazy -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Driven -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Duets -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Dukes of Hazard -- 2005 -- FS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Eagle Eye -- 2008 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Edge, The -- 1997 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Edtv -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Elektra -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Elf (InfiniFilm) -- 2003 -- Dual -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Elizabethtown -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Enchanted -- 2007 -- FS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Enough -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Entrapment (Special Edition) -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Envy -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Equilibrium -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Erin Brockovich -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Ever After -- 1998 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Evolution -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Extreme Days -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Failure to Launch (Special Collector's Edition) -- 2006 -- WS -- 1-Disc $3.00 -- Family Guy - Season 1 & 2 -- 1999, 2000 -- FS -- 4-Discs $3.00 -- Family Guy - Season 3 -- 2001 -- FS -- 3-Discs $3.00 -- Family Guy - Season 4 -- 2002 -- FS -- 3-Discs $2.00 -- Family Man (Collector's Edition) -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Family Stone -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Fantastic 4 -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Far and Away -- 1992 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Fast and the Furious (Collector's Edition) -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Fast and the Furious 2 -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Ferris Bueller's Day Off -- 1986 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Fiddler on the Roof (Special Edition) -- 1971 -- WS -- 1-Disc $3.00 -- Fight Club -- 1999 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Fighting (Unrated Edition) -- 2009 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Final Destination (New Line Platinum Series) -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Final Destination 2 (InfiniFilm) -- 2003 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Final Fantasy (Special Edition) -- 2001 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Find Me Guilty -- 2006 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Finding Forrester -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Finding Neverland -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Firewall -- 2006 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- First Knight -- 1995 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Flight of the Phoenix -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Foolproof -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- For Love of the Game -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Forever Young -- 1992 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Forgotten -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Four Brothers (Special Collector's Edition) -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Fox and the Hound (Gold Collection) -- 1981 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Frailty -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Freaky Friday -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Freedom Writers -- 2007 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Freeway -- 1996 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Frequency (New Line Platinum Series) -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Fried Green Tomatoes -- 1991 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Friends with Money -- 2006 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- From Paris With Love -- 2010 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Fun With Dick & Jane -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- G.I. Jane -- 1997 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Garden State -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Gattaca -- 1997 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Get Shorty -- 1995 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Ghost and the Darkness -- 1996 -- WS -- 1-Disc $5.00 -- Ghostbusters 1 & 2 (Double Feature Gift Set) -- 1984, 89 -- WS -- 2-Discs $6.00 -- Gilmore Girls - Season 1 -- 2000 -- FS -- 6-Discs $6.00 -- Gilmore Girls - Season 2 -- 2001 -- FS -- 6-Discs $6.00 -- Gilmore Girls - Season 3 -- 2002 -- FS -- 6-Discs $6.00 -- Gilmore Girls - Season 4 -- 2003 -- FS -- 6-Discs $6.00 -- Gilmore Girls - Season 5 -- 2004 -- FS -- 6-Discs $6.00 -- Gilmore Girls - Season 6 -- 2005 -- FS -- 6-Discs $6.00 -- Gilmore Girls - Season 7 -- 2006 -- FS -- 6-Discs $2.00 -- Girl Interrupted -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Girl Next Door (Unrated Version) -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Glass House -- 2001 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Godsend -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Godzilla (Deluxe Widescreen Presentation) -- 1998 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Goldmember: Austin Powers (InfiniFilm) -- 2002 -- FS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Gone In 60 Seconds -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Good Luck Chuck (Unrated Edition) -- 2007 -- WS -- 1-Disc SOLD -- Gothica -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Green Mile -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Grosse Pointe Blank -- 1997 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Grudge -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Guy Thing (Special Edition) -- 2003 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Hancock (Theatrical Edition) -- 2008 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Hangover -- 2009 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Hannibal Rising -- 2007 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle (Extreme Unrated) -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $3.00 -- Harry Potter 1: The Sorceror's Stone -- 2001 -- WS -- 2-Discs $3.00 -- Harry Potter 2: The Chamber of Secrets -- 2002 -- WS -- 2-Discs $3.00 -- Harry Potter 3: The Prisoner of Azkaban -- 2004 -- WS -- 2-Discs $3.00 -- Harry Potter 4: The Goblet of Fire (Special Edition) -- 2005 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Harry Potter 5: The Order of the Phoenix -- 2007 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Harry Potter 6: The Half-Blood Prince -- 2009 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Haunting, The (Signature Selection) -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Head of State -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Hellboy (Special Edition) -- 2004 -- WS -- 2-Discs $5.00 -- Heroes - Season 1 -- 2006 -- FS -- 7-Discs $5.00 -- Heroes - Season 2 -- 2007 -- FS -- 4-Discs $5.00 -- Heroes - Season 3 -- 2008 -- FS -- 6-Discs $2.00 -- Hidalgo -- 2004 -- FS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- High Crimes -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- High Fidelity -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Hitch -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Holiday, The -- 2006 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Home Alone (Family Fun Edition) -- 1990 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Home Fries -- 1998 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Hoodwinked -- 2005 -- FS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Hours, The -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $4.00 -- House, M.D. - Season 1 -- 2004 -- FS -- 3-Discs $4.00 -- House, M.D. - Season 3 -- 2006 -- FS -- 5-Discs $4.00 -- House, M.D. - Season 4 -- 2007 -- FS -- 4-Discs $2.00 -- How the Grinch Stole Christmas: New (Collector's Edition) -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- How The Grinch Stole Christmas: Old -- 1966 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Hudson Hawk -- 1991 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Hulk (Special Edition) -- 2003 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Hunted, The -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Hurricane (Collector's Edition) -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc SOLD -- I Am Legend (Special Edition) -- 2007 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- I Am Sam (New Line Platinum Series) -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- I Heart Huckabees -- 2004 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- I Know What You Did Last Summer -- 1997 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- I Know What You Did Last Summer (Still, #2) -- 1998 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- I Love You Man -- 2009 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Identity (Special Edition) -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Idle Hands -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Illusionist -- 2006 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- In Good Company -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- In Her Shoes -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Inception -- 2010 -- WS -- 1-Disc $3.00 -- Incredibles (Collector's Edition) -- 2004 -- WS -- 2-Discs $5.00 -- Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (Blu-Ray Special Edition) -- 2008 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Inkheart -- 2008 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Inside Man -- 2006 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Instinct -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Interview with the Vampire -- 1994 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Intolerable Cruelty -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Island, The -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $4.00 -- It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia - Season 5 -- 2009 -- FS -- 3-Discs $2.00 -- Italian Job (Special Collector's Edition) -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Jackass Number Two (Unrated Version) -- 2006 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Jarhead -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- John Q -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- John Q -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Journey to the Center of the Earth -- 2008 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Joy Ride (Special Edition) -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Juno -- 2007 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Just Like Heaven -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- K-Pax (Collector's Edition) -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Kate & Leopold -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Keeping The Faith -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Kid, The -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- King Arthur (Extended Unrated Version, Director's Cut) -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Kingdom of Heaven -- 2005 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Kiss of the Dragon -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Kiss the Girls -- 1997 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Knight's Tale, A (Special Edition) -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Knockaround Guys -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Knocked Up (Unrated & Unprotected) -- 2007 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Ladder 49 -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Last Action Hero -- 1993 -- FS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Last Castle, The -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Last Kiss, The -- 2006 -- WS -- 1-Disc $3.00 -- Last Samurai, The -- 2003 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Law Abiding Citizen -- 2009 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Laws of Attraction -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- League of Their Own (Deluxe Widescreen Presentation) -- 1992 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Legally Blonde (Special Edition) -- 2001 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Legend of Baggar Vance -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Legends of the Fall (Special Edition) -- 1994 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Lethal Weapon 4 -- 1998 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Liar Liar (Collector's Edition) -- 1997 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Life of David Gale, The -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $3.00 -- Lion King, The (Platinum Edition) -- 1994 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Little Big League -- 1994 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Longest Yard -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Lord of the Rings I: Fellowship of the Ring (Theatrical Version, Not Boxed Set) -- 2001 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Lord of the Rings II: Return of the King (Theatrical Version, Not Boxed Set) -- 2002 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Lord of the Rings III: The Two Towers (Theatrical Version, Not Boxed Set) -- 2003 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Love Actually -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Lucky Number Slevin -- 2006 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Majestic, The -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Man Apart, A -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Man in the Iron Mask -- 1998 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Mask of Zorro (Deluxe Widescreen Presentation) -- 1998 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Master and Commander -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Matchstick Men -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Mean Girls (Special Collector's Edition) -- 2004 -- FS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Meet the Fockers -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Meet The Parents (Collector's Edition) -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Men In Black (Collector's Series) -- 1997 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Men Of Honor (Special Edition) -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Mercury Rising -- 1998 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Messengers -- 2009 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Mexican, The -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Mickey Blue Eyes -- 1999 -- FS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Minority Report -- 2002 -- FS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Miss Congeniality -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Miss Potter -- 2006 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Mona Lisa Smile -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $3.00 -- Monty Python and the Holy Grail (Special Edition) -- 1975 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Moulin Rouge -- 2001 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Mr. & Mrs. Smith -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Mr. Deeds (Special Edition) -- 2002 -- FS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Mulan (Limited Issue) -- 1998 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Mummy Returns, The (Collector's Edition) -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Mummy, The -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Murder By Numbers -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- My Best Friend's Wedding (Special Edition) -- 1997 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- My Big Fat Greek Wedding -- 2002 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Mystic River -- 2003 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Never Been Kissed -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- New York, I Love You -- 2009 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Newsies (Collector's Edition) -- 1992 -- WS -- 1-Disc $3.00 -- Nip/Tuck - Season 1 -- 2003 -- FS -- 5-Discs $3.00 -- Nip/Tuck - Season 2 -- 2004 -- FS -- 6-Discs $3.00 -- Nip/Tuck - Season 3 -- 2005 -- FS -- 6-Discs $3.00 -- Nip/Tuck - Season 4 -- 2006 -- FS -- 5-Discs $3.00 -- Nip/Tuck - Season 5 (Part 1) -- 2007 -- FS -- 5-Discs $2.00 -- Notebook, The (New Line Platinum Series) -- 2004 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Nothing to Lose -- 1997 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Ocean's Eleven -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc SOLD -- Ocean's Thirteen -- 2007 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Ocean's Twelve -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Office Space -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $4.00 -- Office Space (Special Edition with Flair) -- 1999 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Once Upon a Time in Mexico -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Orange County -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Order, The -- 2003 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Oscar -- 1991 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Out of Sight (Collector's Edition) -- 1998 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Out of Time (Special Edition) -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Pacifier -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Pan's Labyrinth -- 2006 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Panic Room -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Patch Adams -- 1998 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Pay It Forward -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Payback -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Paycheck (Special Collector's Edition) -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Pearl Harbor (60th Anniversary Commemorative Edition) -- 2001 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Perfect Storm -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Perfect Stranger -- 2007 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Phone Booth -- 2002 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Pianist -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Pleasantville (New Line Platinum Series) -- 1998 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Practical Magic -- 1998 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Premonition -- 2007 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Prestige -- 2006 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Pride and Glory -- 2008 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Pride and Prejudice (Spotlight Series) -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Prime -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Proof of Life -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Pump Up the Volume -- 1990 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Punch-Drunk Love (Special Edition) -- 2002 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Punisher, The -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Pushing Tin -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Quick and the Dead, The -- 1995 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Radio -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Rain Man (Special Edition) -- 1988 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Red Dragon (Collector's Edition) -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Red Eye -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Reign of Fire -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Remember the Titans -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Rent (Special Edition) -- 2005 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Replacements -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Rescuers -- 1977 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Rescuers Down Under (Gold Collection) -- 1990 -- WS -- 1-Disc $3.00 -- Reservoir Dogs (Special Edition) -- 1992 -- Dual -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Resident Evil (Special Edition) -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Return to Me -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Riding In Cars With Boys (Special Edition) -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Ring, The -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- River Runs Through It, A -- 1992 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Road to Perdition -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Rob Roy -- 1995 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Role Models (Unrated) -- 2008 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Romeo Must Die -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Rookie, The -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Ruins, The (Unrated Version) -- 2008 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Rules of Engagement -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Runaway Bride -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Runaway Jury -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Rundown -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Save the Last Dance -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Saved! -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Saving Private Ryan (Special Limited Edition) -- 1998 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Saving Silverman -- 2001 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Score, The -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Scream (Digitally Mastered) -- 1996 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Scream 2 (Collector's Series) -- 1997 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Scream 3 (Collector's Series) -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Secondhand Lions (New Line Platinum Series) -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Serenity -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Session 9 -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Seven (New Line Platinum Series) -- 1995 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Sex and the City -- 1998 -- WS -- 1-Disc $3.00 -- Sex and the City - Season 1 -- 1999 -- FS -- 2-Discs $3.00 -- Sex and the City - Season 2 -- 2000 -- FS -- 3-Discs $3.00 -- Sex and the City - Season 3 -- 2001 -- FS -- 3-Discs $3.00 -- Sex and the City - Season 4 -- 2002 -- FS -- 3-Discs $3.00 -- Sex and the City - Season 5 -- 2003 -- FS -- 2-Discs $5.00 -- Sex and the City - Season 6 (part 1 and 2) -- 2004 -- FS -- 6-Discs $2.00 -- Shakespeare in Love -- 1998 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Sherlock Holmes -- 2009 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Shooter -- 2007 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Sideways -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Signs -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Silence of the Lambs -- 1991 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Simply Irresistible -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Sin City -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 -- 2008 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Sixth Sense (Collector's Edition Series) -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Skulls (Collector's Edition) -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (Special Collector's Edition) -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Sleepy Hollow -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Smokin' Aces -- 2006 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Snatch -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- So I Married and Axe Murderer -- 1993 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Someone Like You -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Something's Gotta Give -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Spanglish -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Speed -- 1994 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Spider-Man (Special Edition) -- 2002 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Spider-Man 2 (Special Edition) -- 2004 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Spy Game (Collector's Edition) -- 2001 -- FS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Star Trek -- 2009 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Stealth (Special Edition) -- 2005 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Step Brothers (Theatrical Edition) -- 2008 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Stepmom -- 1998 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Stewie's Griffin: The Untold Story -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Stir Of Echoes -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Stranger than Fiction -- 2006 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Superbad (Unrated Extended Edition) -- 2007 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Superbad (Unrated Extended Edition) -- 2007 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Superman Returns -- 2006 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- SWAT (Special Edition) -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Sweet November -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Sweetest Thing, The (Unrated Version) -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Swing Kids -- 1993 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Swordfish -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Tarzan -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Tears of the Sun (Special Edition) -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Terminal, The -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $3.00 -- Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines -- 2003 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Thank You for Smoking -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Thelma & Louise -- 1991 -- WS -- 1-Disc $3.00 -- There's Something About Mary -- 1998 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Three Kings -- 1999 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Three Musketeers -- 1993 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Time Machine -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Time Machine -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- TinkerBell -- 2008 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Titanic -- 1997 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Tomb Raider (Special Collector's Edition) -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Tomb Raider: Cradle of Life (Special Collector's Edition) -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Tombstone -- 1993 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Tommy Boy -- 1995 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Torque -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Town, The -- 2010 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Traffic -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Training Day -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Transporter (Special Edition) -- 2002 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Transporter 2 -- 2005 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Treasure Planet -- 2002 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Truth About Cats and Dogs, The -- 1996 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Turner & Hooch -- 1989 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Twilight -- 2008 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Twilight Saga III: Eclipse -- 2010 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Upside of Anger, The -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- U.S. Marshals (Special Edition) -- 1998 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Unbreakable (Vista Series) -- 2000 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Under the Tuscan Sun -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Underworld (Special Edition) -- 2003 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Underworld: Evolution (Special Edition) -- 2006 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Underworld: Rise of the Lychans -- 2009 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Unfaithful (Special Edition) -- 2002 -- FS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Unleashed (Unrated Version) -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Urban Legend -- 1998 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Usual Suspects, The (Special Edition) -- 1995 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- V for Vendetta -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $3.00 -- Van Wilder -- 2002 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Vanilla Sky -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Vertical Limit (Special Edition) -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $3.00 -- Waiting (Unrated & Raw, Deluxe Edition) -- 2005 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- Waitress -- 2007 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Walk the Line -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Walking Tall -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $3.00 -- Wanted (Special Edition) -- 2008 -- WS -- 2-Discs $2.00 -- War of the Worlds -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Watcher, The -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Wedding Crashers (New Line Platinum Series, Uncorked Edition) -- 2005 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Wedding Crashers (Uncorked Edition) -- 2005 -- FS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Wedding Date -- 2005 -- FS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Wedding Planner -- 2001 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Wedding Singer -- 1998 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- What Happens in Vegas -- 2008 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- What Women Want -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Where the Heart Is -- 2000 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- White Chicks (Unrated & Uncut Version) -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- White Christmas -- 1954 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Whole Nine Yards, The -- 2000 -- Dual -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Whole Ten Yards, The -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Wimbledon -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Win a Date With Tad Hamilton -- 2004 -- FS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Without a Paddle -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- XXX (Special Edition) -- 2002 -- FS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- You Got Served (Special Edition) -- 2004 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- You, Me and Dupree -- 2006 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- You've Got Mail -- 1998 -- WS -- 1-Disc $2.00 -- Zombieland -- 2009 -- WS -- 1-Disc

I really liked the first Ant-Man movie. I thought its light-humored approach and small scale (no pun intended) was a nice change from the overly-busy mess that was Avengers: Age of Ultron. And while I thought Avengers: Infinity War was excellent (in fact, it was the first movie in quite a few years I've seen more than once in the theater), it was kind of exhausting. I left the theater feeling like I'd just been out running. Admittedly, I could stand to exercise more... Ant-Man and The Wasp brings the Marvel Cinematic Universe back down to a personal level. Rather than having 20+ characters all vying for screen time while the fate of the universe hangs in the balance, this film is about a handful of characters and their relationships with each other. One problem with sequels is when they just trudge over the same ground as before because it worked and they don't want to risk something new. But if they do try something new, they can't go too far because the audience wants the characters to be true to who they were, and to not change the tone too drastically. Ant-Man and The Wasp manages to retain what was good about the first film, while expanding on it and developing the characters further. There are certainly nods to the first film, but this feels like a proper continuation of these characters' stories, rather than just trotting them back out to do the same schtick as before. Watching the trailers, I wasn't really sure what the plot of the film was going to be. There's a character named Ghost who can phase through things, and has to be stopped from doing bad stuff. That's about as much as I knew going into it. The movie isn't just about that though. Ghost is certainly an important part of the film, but isn't the entire focus of it. Actually, I found the way they handled Ghost to be decidedly refreshing. Not as a villain in the traditional sense. I'll leave it at that. The central theme of the movie is about relationships. Between Hope Van Dyne (The Wasp) and her family, and Scott Lang (Ant-Man) and his, between the two of them, and other relationships that stretch beyond that, and the impact those relationships have. This is a more character-driven movie, and this is where Marvel really excels. Sure, you have the big showpieces like Infinity War which are fun for what they are, but some of the best Marvel films dive down deeper into the characters' personal stories: Iron Man, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Black Panther, Spider-Man: Homecoming, etc. This is what made Marvel Comics (and Stan Lee's writing) so revolutionary. It's something DC still hasn't figured out yet in their movies. Now that's not to say that this is a two-hour talking heads movie about people getting in touch with their feelings. It's still a superhero movie, and it's a fun one at that. The Wasp is easily the best female superhero the MCU has put on screen so far. Her first fight scene is amazing, and I couldn't help but think, "Yeah... Hank should've given her the Ant-Man suit in the first movie. She would've had that whole thing wrapped up in about five minutes." The movie plays around a lot more with the ideas of shrinking and growing people (and objects), which makes for some genuinely funny moments and pretty cool action scenes. Just don't think about it too much, and you'll be fine. The entire main cast is back from the first film, and it looks like they're all having a lot of fun making this movie. Evangeline Lily particularly shines - her character gets to show a broader range of her personality, she's revealed to be a brilliant scientist in her own right, and of course she gets to kick all sorts of butt throughout the movie. Scott Lang is back as the everyman hero, who more than anything just wants to be a good dad for his daughter, sometimes to his own detriment. Abby Ryder Forston returns as his daughter Cassie, a little bit older now, and she absolutely steals just about any scene she's in. Michael Peña and his crew of oddball ex-cons are back, bringing some of the funniest bits in the film; and while Micheal Douglas is back playing the perfect straight-man to all of the craziness going on around him, he also has an expanded role as he plays a more pivotal part in the main plot. Really, there's not a misstep in the entire cast. Even some of the periphery characters who are only there to introduce some extra conflict are well-cast, and they end up bringing some of the biggest laughs in the film. I found Ant-Man and The Wasp to be a nice change of pace after Infinity War. Some other reviews have referred to it as a palate cleanser. It's lighthearted, yet warmhearted. It has great action and a lot of funny moments. The Wasp is awesome. And maybe best of all, the stakes here are actually higher than in the first Ant-Man movie, because they're personal. A good superhero movie doesn't always have to be about how bad the bad guy is. Wasp and The Ant-Man get a 9/10. As an afterthought, something I noticed in this movie which seems to be a growing trend, is there was quite a bit of dialog (and a couple of shots) that were prominently featured in the trailers, but weren't in the final film. I'm wondering if filmmakers are beginning to create scenes or dialog specifically for trailers now. I don't really mind this, because it can give audiences an idea of what's going to be in a film, without having to spoil more dialog or scenes from it. The downside is when you see a scene in the movie that was dubbed differently for the trailer, and that dialog is conspicuously absent. Anyway... that's just an observation. Not a criticism.

I'm just about to head off for a late-night show at the ArcLight. I'll be posting a review either much later tonight, or in all likelihood, tomorrow. I hadn't quite planned on going to see the movie this soon, but it's getting really difficult to avoid spoilers. I've really been looking forward to this movie, since Winter Soldier was so good. But on the other hand, Age of Ultron was quite a disappointment, so I have no idea how this will turn out. Except, of course, that it will be much better than Batman v Superman. They'd have to work pretty hard for it not to be. Stay tuned! Or tune back in later... since, you know, three hours is a long time to sit there and stare at an empty blog post. _________________________________________ (One good night's sleep and breakfast later...) Okay, now that's how you make a superhero movie. First of all, Captain America: Civil War was fun to watch. There are quite a few "Wow!" moments in the film - fantastic action sequences: fights, chases, surprises, new characters, characters' abilities being showcased in new ways, new revelations, etc. The action sequences in this film take superhero movies to a new level, and the Russo brothers have a knack for bringing them to the screen in a way that's both fantastic and believable. I was watching Avengers: Age of Ultron again the other night, and had a hard time following what was going on in many of the action sequences. It often felt disjointed and fake (which, of course it is). But the Russo's manage to keep the action grounded, more accessible. More personal. Second, it's a compelling film. These are well-liked, established characters, and it's tough to watch them in serious conflict with each other. Sure - there's been arguing amongst the team in the two Avengers movies, but what happens in this movie is genuinely divisive, and something that the filmmakers did a good job of showing both sides of. The sides that each team member comes down on makes sense for their character arcs, especially for those who are conflicted about it. There are shades of gray - not always a clear-cut answer. In essence, the underlying cause behind the plot is very much like Batman v Superman: what do you do about the collateral damage caused by superhero conflicts? However, the tone of each film couldn't be more different. In BvS, the whole film was dark, moody, angry, and neither of the two main characters had any redeeming or likable qualities left to them. I didn't care about their conflict, who won or lost, or what the consequences were. However, in CA:CW, despite the huge number of characters in the movie, I found something to care about (or at least root for) in all of them. Now, part of this is due to how well the Marvel Cinematic Universe characters are already established. However, there are new characters introduced in this film who have relatively little screen time, yet manage to be compelling anyway. And they're all very different characters, with different personalities, different perspectives, and different stakes in the conflict. This is well-written stuff, and unlike Avengers: Age of Ultron, it doesn't feel overly-busy. Yes, there's a lot going on, and some characters have less to do here than others, but this is primarily a film about Captain America, and he carries the film. The characters driving the story get the most screen time, and the rest are nicely balanced amongst the supporting cast, each of which have their own moments to shine (and some quite spectacularly). I never felt that anyone got unduly short-changed, and we got some tastes of the things we can look forward to in future movies. Now... is CA:CW a perfect movie? Well, no. I felt the main villain behind the whole thing was a bit of a let-down. I thought the basic idea behind what he was doing worked, and it also tied together some long-existing threads in the MCU, but he wasn't developed enough to be interesting (Marvel just can't seem to come up with another Loki). Also, when the reason the heroes were fighting each other changed, I'm not sure I bought 100% into the ferocity behind it. It seemed a bit out-of-character at that point in the movie. But it was still compelling to watch - you worry about these characters. Not just for what may happen to them, but what they may end up doing. What lines will they cross? Like Captain America: The Winter Soldier, this is primarily Cap's movie, and Chris Evans does a great job in the role again. His character is much better developed in his films than in either of the Avengers movies. He shines in the action sequences, and his relationships with others and his own convictions are at the heart of this movie. Because of all of the other characters at play here, it would be almost fair to call this movie The Avengers 3, except that if it was, the emphasis wouldn't have been so much on his story. Now, I have to go slightly off the spoiler-free tracks for just a moment, and mention two things: I had a ton of fun watching this movie. There are a lot of great action/fight/chase moments in this movie, and the airport fight is probably the single coolest sequence in any superhero movie to date. It checked all the right boxes. Yet the movie wasn't without a serious tone, driving the story and characters along. But it was not dark. It was not a moody, hopeless, dystopian world, full of perpetually depressed, angry, mopey jerks. There was certainly distrust, hurt, anger, betrayal, and anguish, but that's not who the characters are at their core. They were torn and conflicted. Always wanting to do the right thing, but struggling at times to know what that was. Trying to rise above it. To still be heroes. Captain America: Civil War is what a comic book movie should be. It's exciting and fun to watch. It has characters you care about. They should be in genuine peril - and sometimes that means more than just physically being in jeopardy. It means what choices do they make? How do they change? What happens next? This movie has all of that. It changes the Marvel Cinematic Universe again. Not just for the sake of change, but to add depth to it. The real world is a complex place, and this movie reflects that complexity. And it sets up the next Marvel movies very nicely indeed. Go check it out. On the big screen. With a whole bunch of people. Captain America: Civil War gets a tough-to-score 8.9/10. (I think Winter Soldier was a better Captain America movie, because it was so much more his story, much like the first Iron Man movie was the best story about Tony Stark. But as a superhero movie, this is among the best of the best. Huge action set pieces, but overall on a more personal level than either of the Avengers films. And ultimately, personal stakes are much more compelling than dropping a giant rock out of the sky.)

Some of us skipped out of work today... I mean... took an extended lunch... to see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. For an opening day, the theater was surprisingly not-that-full. Of course, being in the middle of a Thursday afternoon probably had something to do with it (also, they were showing it on three screens at the same time). And even though large opening-day crowds can be fun, it was still nice not to have to get to the theater two hours early and wait in long lines just to get bad seats. 30 minutes was plenty to snag the best seats in the house. But I'm sure tonight and tomorrow there will be some lines for it. It's hard to review this film without really giving anything away. There are some hints in the trailers, and rumors floating around, but nothing I'd heard (and I was trying to avoid spoilers) quite captured... how should I put this... the depth to which they committed to the concept of the story. There's a couple of ways they could have gone in explaining... umm... things, and you either buy their explanation, or you don't. The nice thing at least, is they keep you guessing for pretty-much three-quarters of the film. Give or take. You can see where it might be going, but you aren't sure if they'll commit to it or not, until they actually hit the "point-of-no-return" (that's a joke, for those who've seen the film. Trust me - two or three people just got a really good laugh out of that). Anyway, I didn't buy into the direction they went, and the last 1/4 of the film just really didn't work for me. I felt like I was watching a different Spielberg film. And I'm not referring to Saving Private Ryan. Or, mercifully, Hook. I think they could have gone a more interesting, different route. Maybe after the movie's out for awhile, I'll go into that a bit more. That said - I still enjoyed most of the movie. Quite a lot, really. Harrison Ford is still Indiana Jones. He still works in that character, and I still bought him doing the fights and stunts that he did. Sure, sometimes he looked a bit weather-beaten, but I wouldn't mind looking that weather-beaten when I'm 85. I mean, 65. It's hard to believe he hasn't had a hit movie in 11 years. They revisited some classic Indiana Jones territory, and even played up the fact this was just routine stuff for him, by having some of the action we've seen umpteen dozen times (like him taking over a car from a bad-guy) offscreen, so you just see people's reactions to what he's doing instead. Nice touch. I also really liked the fact that they explained a bit more about his past (including what he's been doing since the last film). It added some more depth and humanity to the character. One problem I have with this genre of films though, is that when they're looking over clues - it would be nice to give the audience even some sort of chance to be able to figure them out. Most of the time, the clues are so obscure or specific, that they're something only one person in the film could ever hope to solve. By at least making the clues a little more universally accessible, you're giving the audience more of a chance to get involved, by figuring some of it out themselves. The action sequences were classic Indiana Jones - fast, fun, and patently ridiculous. But that's how we like 'em. It was also nice to not see an obvious over-reliance on CG effects. Yes, I'm sure they're actually there, all over the place, but the film didn't use them heavily at least until the ending. Even with that, it didn't seem "over-computery". The effects fit within the film, which generally looked refreshingly low-tech. (For what it's worth, Spielberg insisted on shooting Crystal Skull on actual film, over Lucas' insistence on using HD video cameras.) One of my biggest concerns going into the film was Shia LaBeouf. Generally, he plays really obnoxious, irritating characters, who try to act funny and yell a lot. However, he's actually a good actor when he has a good director to reign him in, and that was the case in this film. They came up with a good character for him, and one grounded in the time period of the film (without seeming kitschy), and it all worked very well. He had some really good moments in the film (particularly during one car chase/fight scene) so my worries were unfounded. John Hurt was also very good, and it didn't hurt Harrison Ford to have someone around him who looked 20 years older than he does, either. It was also nice to see one of the classic Indy characters return, and allusions to some others. Sadly, and this isn't really a spoiler, since it doesn't have to do with something in the film - Sean Connery isn't in it. I had hoped they'd come up with a way for him to have a cameo, but Connery reportedly hadn't been in very good health, which I suspect is to blame. Also, neither series stalwarts Denholm Elliott nor Pat Roach are alive anymore, otherwise I'm sure they'd have been present. The villains are okay, but they just aren't up to the level of the ones in Raiders. The series never managed to really come up with a worthy adversary for Indy again, the closest being the return of the Nazis in Last Crusade. But even then, there wasn't really a single villain who dominated a film like Belloq did in Raiders. Also, a couple of the villains in this film really don't have satisfying... conclusions. Again, it's something I can get into some other time. It's one of those things where there were better ways to handle it. Something that the audience would have rather seen. Something they were probably expecting, and should have been rewarded with. I liked when they set the movie, since some interesting things were happening at the time, and where the opening scenes took place, for the same reasons. It always strikes me as kind of funny though, that Indy always starts out on one of these adventures as a skeptic. "It's just a story" he says. This from the guy who discovered the Ark of the Covenant, The Holy Grail, and three magical glowing potatoes? You'd think he'd know better by now. Overall, Indiana Jones and the Extremely Long Title is a fun film, and for the first three-quarters of it, the time flew by and I really enjoyed it. It really was like picking right back up again with the same character. A bit older, but still in there throwing punches, swinging from his whip, throwing bad guys out of moving vehicles, and practicing his own unique brand of archaeology. It was a fun ride, and well-worth the price of the popcorn. Whether the heart of the storyline will work for you or not... maybe that's a completely personal preference sort-of thing. To me, it just didn't fit with the rest of Indy's adventures. But the rest of the film is a lot of fun to watch, and it's way, way, way better than Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. It's almost up there with Last Crusade, but like Last Crusade, falls apart a bit too much at the end. I'll give it... 8/10.

Well, I was going to try and write this one in five minutes as I did with the Mission Impossible review, but well, that didn't quite work out. So that means you get to do more reading. Lucky you! I loved The Muppet Show as a kid. It was irreverent, wacky, fun, silly, sly, adult, childish, and brilliant. I went and saw the first Muppet Movie in the theaters, and while that captured some of the feel of the show, it somehow fell short. I think I saw The Muppets Take Manhattan, but I honestly don't remember it very well. I largely avoided the rest of The Muppets' films over the years, since what I saw of them just didn't seem to re-capture that magic of the original show. Too much emphasis on being "movies", and not enough on what made The Muppet Show work - short, funny, disconnected skits (but with the inevitable running gags). Maybe that was an unfair assumption, but also after Jim Henson passed away, it just didn't seem like Kermit was quite the same. Not easy shoes (or flippers) to fill, to be sure. When I heard a new Muppet movie was happening, I was skeptical. But then I started seeing some clips from it, and it seemed more like the old show. Less about being a movie, and more about being the Muppets. Embracing the silliness, breaking the "fourth wall", poking fun at the movie itself from within the movie. So while on vacation recently, and having a couple of hours to kill, I went to go see it. I'm glad I did. In short, The Muppets is an affectionate love-letter to the old series - fully embracing the goofiness of it all. The star of the film is a new Muppet named Walter, and while I've never been much of a fan of newer Muppets, Walter works because he acts as a bridge between the worlds of Muppets and humans in a really clever and effective way. He re-introduces us to the Muppets, and draws the audience along with him on his quest to meet them and find his place in the world. (Although my favorite new character would have to be 80's Robot.) The human stars of the film (some guy I'd never heard of named Jason Segal, and Amy Adams) do a good job of satirizing idealized middle-America type characters out of another time (from their wide-eyed small-town naiveté to impromptu musical numbers). There are a number of clever cameos in the film to watch out for too - my favorite being Dave Grohl. The real treat of the film is that The Muppet Show is revived during a telethon, and we get to revisit what the show might be like if it were back on the air. It gave me hope (albeit a probably false one) that The Muppet Show might come back to TV someday with new episodes, guests and skits. The barbershop quartet number was especially funny. One last important thing to note - Steve Whitmire really does a tremendous job playing Kermit. He's had over 20 years now to fill Jim Henson's shoes, and I think the highest compliment I could pay him is that what we see on screen is Kermit. It took me aback a few times, watching the film, realizing I was being captivated by some guy's hand in a green sock with plastic eyeballs stuck to it. Movie and Muppet magic, indeed. If you love The Muppets, you should go see this film. Even if you don't - there's enough satire and in-jokes about movies, musical numbers and Hollywood (and just general silliness) to keep you entertained for an hour and a half. Check it out. 8/10

Currently waiting in line at the theater with my peeps (okay... I don't actually have any "peeps"... but I am saving seats for a couple of friends...) to see Guardians of the Galaxy. I'll admit I was surprised to hear Marvel was making this into a movie. I was a comic book collector and Marvel fan-boy in the 80's, and even I had never read the GotG comic book. I seem to recall something about it, but had just dismissed it as some weird, obscure title involving their "cosmic" characters, which I was never into. Not sure what I thought it was about at the time, but after seeing the movie trailers I attributed it to being Marvel's in-house answer to Star Wars (they were doing the official Star Wars comic in the 70's and 80's, but didn't own any of the properties). However, after a few Google searches, that didn't make sense since the original comic book came out in 1969. So I'm still not certain about the genesis of it, and it's the 2008 comic book reboot that serves as the basis for this film, not the earlier iteration. Anyway, it seems now to be more of a sci-fi franchise, than an obscure super-hero one. In the next couple of hours, I'll find out (now sitting in the theater, waiting for showtime). I won't have the time to post the full review until tomorrow - so tune back in then! (The next day...) That was a fun movie! I thought the trailers looked pretty funny, and (for once) they did a god job of conveying the mood of the film, without spilling the best parts of it. GotG has a lot of really funny moments, and some genuinely heartfelt ones as well. The action is top-notch throughout, with excellent special effects (although at times things get a bit too busy on-screen, but then again, I'm old). What makes the movie work so well is the ensemble cast. They're all memorable characters, with different personalities that play off of each other very well, yet each has their own moment to shine. That's particularly notable since two of them (Rocket and Groot) are entirely CGI, and they were clearly the favorites of the audience. Rocket has the best lines in the film, and Groot is just an amazing, almost magical character. As the film unfolds, you see more sides of Groot's personality and astonishing abilities. I really wasn't sure what to expect from a walking tree and talking raccoon, but I was absolutely delighted with them both (particularly Groot). Perhaps due to the time constraints of the movie, the heroes may have gelled a bit too easily and quickly, but once together as a team, they clicked very well and were a lot of fun to watch. The movie has a lot of groundwork to cover (typical of an origin story), and that got a bit disjointed at times, especially for people not familiar with some of the more obscure aliens in the Marvel comic universe. For the most part though, everyone seemed able to follow along, since at its core, it's a good guy vs. bad guy movie. Even there though, there are layers to it, with bad guys that are the focus of this film, and then those who are pulling their strings, setting up things for future Marvel movies. GotG is clearly building along towards some other, bigger future event that will cross over to other Marvel movies. It sets itself up as the beginning of a franchise with clear opportunities for sequels, and I for one can't wait to see the next one. I had a lot of fun (there's that word again) watching Guardians of the Galaxy. As much as any Marvel film that I've seen, and as much as any recent sci-fi film I can recall. It bridges the sci-fi and superhero worlds very well. And while not a perfect film it's a crowd-pleaser, and well-worth plunking down the money to see it on the big screen. Guardians of the Galaxy gets 8.5/10. Check it out. Buy extra popcorn.