TRON: Legacy

Loved it, Loved it, Loved it.

I loved the original from the moment I saw it. I didn't understand all of it when I was six, but my Dad is a Computer programmer and explained some of the Geek Speak to me.

I love that in the original, there was large touch based flat panel technology—which is just now starting to be commercially available.

Everything that needed to be in the new movie, was in it—except living bits, though there were some mantle ornaments.

We saw it in IMAX 3D. Not all of the movie was in 3D, so it gives your eyes some rest. The only problem here is that some of the 3D Trailers were Headache inducing (particularly the Morgan Freeman Voice Over IMAX Orphan Animals Hippie Movie). Also, some of the hand-to-hand combat action was so crazy that it became hard to read in 3D on such a gigantic screen, so I'm expecting a Transformers experience (I Liked it on the big screen, but what looked like a lot of flying metal at the theater was actually separate characters doing really cool things once I saw it at home on DVD [i.e. Optimus Prime Sword Hand vs. Megatron Mace Hand]).

Everything was a nod to the old film, and treated the original material with respect, while building on it in amazing ways.

This Movie Excited me in the Same way the original did. The original sparked my imagination about a Glowing Digital World inside computers where video game death-matches took place and Frisbees were the coolest weapon imaginable, and light Cycles the greatest form of transportation. Those same ideas are updated and if I were a six year old today, I think this movie would hit me the same way the original did back then.

When a movie is over, and I just want to sit through it again—I consider it a success.

One last thought, You do not have to be a fan of the original to enjoy the new film—it is written as it's own thing. Familiarity with the original just adds to an already good movie.

King Brian's Antics

In March I tried to Purchase Darby O'Gill and the Little People on DVD, but it was sold out. I found it a month later and picked it up. I was looking at the DVD Case and noticed immediately that there was something wrong.

Still Don't See It? Try taking a look at it on the shelf.

King Brian is Definitely Up to His Tricks Again!

No Game

Due to Lack of RSVP and RSVP in the negative, I called off the game for Saturday and went to Inception. It was every bit as good as people were saying it was. The funny thing about movies like this (well twisted plot with lots of room for unanswered questions) there's alway the people that think they're too cool to think it was good  and think they understood the whole thing after 15 minutes into the movie. The friend that I went with and a group of people I overheard after the fact fall into that category. These people have forgotten how to have fun.

I think I missed a few things, and will need to see it again. I was certainly on edge for a good portion of the film.

I definitely recommend it.

Older Movies

Anyone that knows me, knows that I am a fan of movies. I have a rather large DVD collection—some would say it borders on the ridiculous in sheer size, some would say that my taste is ridiculous. The oldest film in my collection was made in 1911, the newest 2010. Many people mock me because of the way my collection is arranged on the shelf—alphabetical by distribution company (My wife makes sure that her movies are in her own section so she can find them). This, of course, was so I could keep all my Disney movies together. Yes, I owned all the princess movies before I had kids...even before I was married.

I had a birthday recently, I never expect gifts, but I am always appreciative of them. I got a stack of old Disney movies, also I've been spending a lot more time at the library during my unemployment, and the library has movies. As a result, I've been watching a lot of older movies, and I've noticed something. The Pre-Computer Graphic era of Film has a certain reality, and grittiness that the newer stuff just can't hold a candle to.

I'll start with something newer to provide contrast. We got 2012 at the Red Box, since I still had not seen it. Yes, I recognize that 2012 is not great cinema, and I enjoy it for the same reason I enjoy (and own) The Poseidon Adventure and Towering Inferno: I like Cheezy disaster movies. It is fun to watch things get destroyed, it's fun to watch ordinary people overcome the extrordinary. I don't know how they are ever going to top 2012—they destroyed everything in that movie.

We watched Flight of the Navigator the other night, and I was very impressed by the interior of the Space Ship. First of all, it had to be a nightmare for the crew to keep that clean during filming. Every surface was mirrored, which also had to be a problem; when you film mirrors you have to be extra careful, because the filming crew can be seen in them, but not once during the watching of the movie, did I even think to look for that detail. I was worried that that movie wouldn't hold up—but it did.

Flight of the Navigator vs. 2012: The Space Ship in Flight of the Navigator seemed more real than the Arcs in 2012, because there were so many exterior and interior shots that used real props and sets.

I watched The Final Countdown today. First off, how is it possible that I have never seen this movie? It was great!! Not only were the characters great, and the concept great, but watching all the Aircraft Carrier stuff was Amazing! It was all real, there was one major special effect in the movie (used twice) and a few models used for explosions. All the shots of the airplanes, the loading of missiles, etc.—it was all real. When you see the same sort of shots in newer movies, it's all too perfect—even the stuff that isn't animated is all slick and perfected.

The Final Countdown vs 2012: The Final Countdown was shot on a real ship, with real planes. It was gritty and real, it was imperfect, it was wonderful. 2012 was shot with chroma key. The planes were fake, the ships were fake, even the ocean was fake, I believed it during the movie since the visual language all jived, but watching The Final Countdown made me realize how fake it was.

I got some Gumby stuff for my kids (and Myself) at the library. We've watched Episodes from the 50's, 60's, and 80's; as well as the Move made in the 80's (Gumby Fights an Evil, Robot, Clone with a Light Saber!). Is it hokey? Yes. Do I Love It? Yes! Frankly, I find it refreshing to watch entertainment that is honest, and not sterilized by political correctness. Occasionally, there's a statement that is "political" but nothing that preaches to me and tells me that my way of thinking is wrong.

Gumby vs 2012: Gumby's animation is all jittery and you can see the fingerprints in the clay, the people barely look like people, and I love every minute of it. 2012s animation is perfect, they destroy everything, with so much detail that you don't realize how unreal it is, unless your one of those people that don't understand how to have fun watching movies anymore.

The other thing I've noticed about older movies, is that they don't try to shove as much into the plots. They keep them simple, the camera movement is simpler, the effects are simpler, but they don't necessarily feel that way. We watched the entire planet of the Apes series recently. My wife pointed out to me how they dragged out certain scenes. Taylor running from the Apes went on and on in her mind and after a while she was saying (out loud) "Ok, we get the point. Can we continue on with the plot?" Watching those movies felt like watching an Epic Bible movie, in terms of pace—yet not one of them is longer than two hours, and most are closer to 90 minutes (a length reserved for Children's movies and comedies in modern cinema).

But I like modern movies as well. I did in fact enjoy 2012. It wasn't any better or worse in terms of story than the slew of disaster movies from the 60's and 70's. It just looks slicker.

FYI

Natalie Portman will Star in and Produce: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

Google Wave—Shameless Begging

I've been hearing all about this Google Wave thing.

I still can't seem to wrap my head around what exactly it is, and I want to check it out, but it's currently invitation only.

I figure someone Geeky that Reads My Blog could offer me one of their invites.

To prove exactly how shameless this begging is, I'm applying all my labels to this blog. From what I understand, Google Wave could apply in some way to all of them.

Your Japanese Lesson for the Day Brought to You By Nostalgia From my Youth

Kaiju: Literal Translation—Strange Beast. Often used to describe a Genre of Film depicting Giant Monsters Typified by Godzilla.

Even when I was a kid I loved Movies. I don't know why, but I found that I had the attention span for them that a lot of my peers did not. One that I was always excited to watch when it was on T.V. (and tried to share with friends on multiple occasions with less than stellar results) was King Kong vs. Godzilla. It is available on DVD today.

I never know if these movies will stand up to the test of time. I always looked forward to the 1976 version of King Kong when it was on as well. When Peter Jackson remade King Kong a few years ago I borrowed the 1976 film from the library and was severely let down—it wasn't as good as I remembered—now that I'm thinking about it, the reason I recall a better movie is possibly because in editing it for T.V. it was improved by getting rid of a lot of unnecessary fluff. I also got the original 1933 version and watched it as well. The 1933 version is spectacular, there's a reason that version is a classic and it's not just because it's the original; it is a genuinely great movie.

Anyway, King Kong vs. Godzilla makes Kong a lot bigger than he ever was in previous incarnations, so as to match the scale of the much larger Godzilla. This also marks the first time either monster was filmed in color. 

Shakespeare...With Ninjas...and Sumo

My wife got a DVD at the library recently. As You Like It, written by The Bard Himself—Billy Shakespeare.

This particular adaptation of As You Like It is set in 19th century Japan at a time when many English traders made their homes in Japan.

The Film starts with a Ninja attack to explain the banishment that is a major plot point of the play, also one of the characters has a scene where he fights a wrestler, and since this adaptation takes place in Japan—he fights a Sumo wrestler.

It's one of Shakespeare's comedies and so has a lot of silliness in it. I thought it was good and would reccomend it.

The "All the World's a Stage" speech is from As You Like It as well as the origin of the phrase "too much of a good thing."

Curses!!

Someone asked me how to edit a DVD (i.e. Remove the Curse Words/Embarrassing Scenes) and maintain the surround sound. This will be somewhat general as different computers will have different settings that will change certain specifics.

First off, this is a very time consuming endeaver; and if you mention that you have edited a DVD, a DVD that you purchased at the store, a DVD that you keep on  your shelf at home for your own personal viewing, on the shelf right next to the original DVD version of the film—if you ever mention that out loud, or on a blog, etc. the MPAA will bust down your door and take away all your DVDs that you purchased from your favorite retail outlet, and then fine you for "Artistic" impugnment, take away your dog and make you Rot away in prison while your stay-at-home Wife is left to find a way to pay the Mortgage while you're stuck doing laundry for pennies and fear for your self in the shower.

First of all, because DVDs are in MPEG2, they are not an editible format. In MPEG2 you have key frames, and all the frames between those key frames are based on what changed in the frame from that key frame. So the first thing to do is get the video into an editible format.

I use a program called DVDFab—find it yourself, it's of questionable legality and costs... I don't know, it was $50 when I bought it, but I think the price has gone up. You could also probably use, Super or Handbrake—but I'm not an expert at those. I like DVDFab for its "one click" usage.

You want to get the Video into an AVI using a codec that your computer can understand. The audio codec doesn't matter, because you won't be using the audio—turn off the audio in the video file if possible.

Then you need to use the program again to rip an audio stream out of the same source. This should give you an AC3 file. An AC3 file is an audio file with 5.1 audio. Then you want to use BeSweet with the BeSweet GUI to rip 6 Mono WAV files.

Take the AVI file and the 6 Mono Wave files into your video editor (I use Adobe Premiere) and then edit as you please. I have used techniques like: Muting only the Center channel (where you find most of the dialogue), borrowing ambient sound from other channels so it doesn't sound like the audio is cutting out, removeing scenes completely, etc.

When you're done, export the video to Frames, then render those frames as MPEG2.
Then Export all the channels of audio seperately and recombine them into an AC3 file, the software I use is no longer available comercially (it's been implimented into the feature set of a more expensive program, I think)—I understand that you can use a program called HeadAC3he (using a global gain of 6db to get the volume right) I've never used it though.

So now you should have an MPEG2 video file and an AC3 File. Take those into your DVD authoring program of choice (I've used Adobe Encore and DVDLab) Setup menus if you want.

I don't know how to retain Subtitles, but I maintain that someone probably knows how.

This is Not Your Father's Star Trek?!

As with all Movie Reviews that I may write, there is a major possibility of spoilers. Don't read if you don't want it spoiled.

I saw Star Trek this weekend. I've been very excited for this movie. My Father introduced me to Star Trek in the early eighties (I think). I watched it every chance I got. I don't remember the first time I ever watched it, but I have been a fan since that time. I have seen every Star Trek Movie in theaters since IV (Except First Contact—I was on my mission). Back when they started Star Trek: The Next Generation I was excited for that to come out, then I watched the show and I hated it—then I started watching it again in the third season or so and only after I came to enjoy those later seasons, did the shows from the first two seasons become enjoyable to me. When I found out that they were relaunching the franchise I was excited. This is exactly what Star Trek Needed.

I'm a fan of Lost, I think it's one of the most intelligent shows on T.V. right now—I think that that, combined with scheduling issues is one of the reasons it's been struggling a little in the ratings department. But I'm not here to talk about Lost. I bring it up only because the creator of Lost, Mr. J.J. Abrams was a brilliant choice for director and served to get me excited.

And Simon Peg as Scotty was a brilliant move as well, that was another element that excited me.

Also, the marketing of this movie was brilliantly handled. There was the teaser that revealed the exterior of the Enterprise; I think I saw 3 different trailers and they were comprised of mostly the same footage, I didn't feel like I had seen the whole movie before it came out. They didn't try to sell this movie—they let it sell itself.

But it was the writing that made this movie so great—they showed utmost respect for the source material, while at the same time upgrading it for todays audiences.

There was a trailer of this movie that stated,"This is not your Father's Star Trek."

And though I think that was necessary for marketing to bring in the non-trekkie, it's a half truth.

On one hand, the way that they avoided canon was brilliantly executed—looking at it that way, this is an alternate time line and all the Trek that came before is not entirely nullified while at the same time allowing them to do whatever they want with the stories.

On the other hand all the Exploring Strange New Worlds, Seeking Out New Life and New Civilizations, and Boldly Going Where No Man Has Gone Before—is all there. All the Action, All the Wonder, All the Excitement that made this Series great originally. It's all there.

All the Star Trek Tropes are Securely in place. Kirk is Smart, Good in a Fight, and Likes the Ladies. Bones is Cantankerous and "a Doctor Not a ..." Spock clings to his Vulcan heritage, while not rejecting his human side (and has Green Blood). Scotty is Jovial and Scottish, funny and Brilliant and "Cannot Give 'er Any More."

There was a running joke throughout the beginning of the movie where Uhura would not reveal her first name to Kirk—as this was happening, I realized that I had watched Star Trek my entire life and did not know Uhura's first name, this made the joke even better. I looked it up later and was relieved that her first name was not canon until this new film.

Chekov pronounces "v" as "w" Sulu is a fencer—and a Red Shirt Ate it Early on.

So this is definitely your Father's Star Trek. It makes you feel like you did when your Father introduced you to the show when you were a kid. It's just that entertaining.

Twilight—For What It's Worth

Emily Rented Twilight. Turn away now if you don't want spoilers because I make no Promise to avoid them.

My point of view. I think book three was out before I'd even heard of this series. It never really interested me; don't get me wrong, I like stories that involve all manner of Supernatural Beings—this however is not a Vampire/Werewolf story, it's a romance—and while I'm all for a bit of Romance in my Adventure Stories, I'm generally not looking for escape in a flat out romance story. Something about this whole saga just kind of feels off, and I can't explain it. Most likely it's the raging hordes of Fan Girls—and if there is a group of people that scare me more than Fan Boys and LARPers, it's Fan Girls. That and the wear-all-black, emo, vibe that sits on top of this whole thing.

Having said all that, I went into the movie experience giving this thing the Full Benefit of the Doubt. I wanted it to be good. Mostly it was, but there was some real awkwardness in this interpretation of the source material. I understand what the director was trying to put across, but it just felt uncomfortable. 

The entire first half of the movie, all the encounters with Edward just felt awkward. I know the director was trying to put across that Eddie (is it coincidence that he and Herman Munster's Son have the same name?) had an almost insurmountable desire that he was trying to suppress—But I have to look at it this way, he's been a vampire now for just over 100 years, I got the impression that he was turned by a "Vegetarian" and so he's probably been a Veggie since the beginning of his monstrous career (though he did claim to be a killer...but I think that was just more awkward coping), he's apparently Matriculated quite a number of times—so he's spent a LOT of time surrounded by teenage girls—even if he's Bored to Death (Ha Ha) he's got to have developed better social graces and coping mechanisms by now.


But what do I know. All in all it was an okay movie, I didn't hate it—I got into it, except when Ed was acting weird. The story was compelling enough. Though its execution fell short of its potential, it wasn't enough to make me hate the movie (I'm looking at you Cat in the Hat). 

After watching the Movie, Emily watched some of the Bonus Material and I saw the director and all the awkwardness came into sharp focus—she was putting a lot of her own awkwardness into the character of Edward. I'm sure the next film will greatly benefit from the introduction of a new director.



Now, all this is fine and Dandy, I'm still not going to read the books—not my thing. But let's get to what's really important: There was a trailer for Astro Boy at the front of the DVD—now that's quality entertainment.

Coraline

If you can't stand spoilers, you really shouldn't read this at all. I make no promises to not spoil something. There is a chance that I might not spoil anything at all, I don't really know what I'm going to write other than I am going to write about Coraline. (So I've read over the Blog and there are no Spoilers—feel free to read)

Some background information first.

Coraline is a Novella.

Apparently a Novella is Longer than a Novelette and Shorter than a Novel. I find it amusing that there are such distinctions. I find it equally amusing that there is disagreement among different literary grand-high-mucky-muckies about the defined length and differences. I find it immensely amusing that mostly this boils down to word count.

Coraline was written by Neil Gaiman.

I became familiar with Mr Gaiman when he was working on The Sandman at D.C. Comics. The Sandman was part of what D.C. Comics called Vertigo, a group of comics that were a little more Mature in their themes—marketed to late-teens to early adults. The Sandman was primarily a story about Morpheus, the anthropomorphic personification of Dream. I used to think of Gaiman as a Comic Book Author that went on to write Novels and Film Scripts. Now I see him as I see Walt Disney—a Storyteller that works in any Medium he can.

Coraline the Movie, is Directed By Henry Selik.

What do you need to know about Henry Selik? Directed The Nightmare Before Christmas and James and the Giant Peach and now Coraline. In a world that increasingly turns to the Flash Bang and Pizazz of computer generated 3D animation. Henry Selik keeps pushing the envelope and technology of an old-school style of animation that most consider past its time. I'm drawn to his work in the Same way I'm drawn to Tim Burton's work. It speaks to me in a way that I can't quite put into words.

So, now that I've moved far enough down that any Spoilers will be below the bottom of the browser for most visitors. I can start actually talking about Coraline.

I loved it. I laughed a lot—but I wasn't hearing laughter from those around me. I guess they just didn't get it.

The best way I can think to describe this story, is a Creepy Alice in Wonderland. It had a "rabbit" hole, a Cheshire Cat, "tea" parties, an alternate world, and a Mad Queen.

Part of what these Stop Motion Masterpieces have, that their Computer generated siblings don't is a certain sense of stylization—not only in their visual representation, but in their movement as well. The lack of motion blur in stop motion turns every frame into a work of art.

Another thing Coraline has going for it is the fact that it was shot in 3D. The new 3D technology is leaps and bounds ahead of the 3D of yesteryear. It uses a Digital Projector that is equipped with a special modulating lens called a ZScreen [that I couldn't find much information about] which circularly polarizes alternating right eye and left eye frames at 72 frames per second, per eye (that's 144 frames per second folks). This creates a 3D effect when combind with circularly polarized glasses worn by audience members. You can even turn your head and it won't break the illusion.

What that means is you won't get a headache caused by other 3D systems. Nightmare Before Christmas 3D is still the Best 3D experience I've ever had, but I suspect (since both films used the same 3D technology (Real D Cinema)) that if I had sat further back, the Coraline Experience could have been a little better.

It's Nice that the 3D experience is finaly less of a gimmick. I can only think of one shot in the whole movie that seemed like it was pandering to the 3D experience. The thing with 3D is that they generally purposefully include shots where something comes out into your face, it's forced and un-natural and always feels out of place and unnecessary. I think that's why Nightmare Before Christmas 3D stands out so much, It was a great film long before it was 3D.

What I want to know is, where's my Lord of the Rings and Star Wars in 3D? I read that they were being converted and were supposed to be released starting 2007.

So this Dark and Creepy Alice in Wonderland style story is filmed in 3D, directed by Henry Selik, who directed Tim Burton's Nightmare Before Christmas. Interestingly enough—Tim Burton is currently working on Alice in Wonderland—also to be released in 3D. Burton is Making the Film for Disney, says he never liked the Disney version (Walt wasn't terribly fond of it either). It will feature Live action, Stop Motion Animation, and Computer Generated Animation. It is being shot with traditional cameras and will be converted to 3D. Richard Zanuck (Producer) explained 3D cameras were too expensive and "clumsy" to use, and decided there was no difference between converted footage and those shot in the format, which was one of the big draws of Real D Cinema in the first place.

Okay, so I haven't really said much about Coraline. I liked it. I liked it a lot. I've Rambled a lot.

Mamma Mia! Indeed

I'm not a huge movie snob. I'll watch just about any kind of movie. (Even those "romantical" ones that I give my wife such a hard time about liking—some aren't too bad.) There are some movies that look like a stinker from a mile away. There are some real stinkers that I honestly don't hate, though the general consensus is that it is supposed to be a bad movie. (i.e. Ultraviolet, Battlefield Earth, Star Wars: Episodes I - III, Odd Numbered Star Trek Films) There are movies that I really wanted to see, that turned out to be awful. (i.e. The X-Files: I Want to Believe, Cat in the Hat) Then there are some honestly well done movies that everyone is supposed to like, that I hate. (i.e. Fargo, Million Dollar Baby)

The category that Mamma Mia! fell into was: There is no way in a Million years I would ever want to see that stinker of a movie for any reason (though secretly curious because I grew up in a house where the songs of ABBA flowed freely).

It was on sale at Christmas, and though we had not seen it, I got it and gave it to my wife. Having not seen it, we wisely chose to get it at Red Box first. 

Since I was only secretly curious about it I ended up only seeing part of the movie. We started watching it and then went to bed because it was late (see? already it was not good enough to pull us in and force completion upon us—which has been known to happen) and she finished it and took it back without me the next day. I was not heartbroken in the least, because there were problems in this movie from the beginning. 

First of all the time period. I don't know when this is supposed to be taking place. Lets look to the movie for clues. The Daughter, reading from Mom's journal indicates that she was conceived during the "Summer of Love" which was 1967, but let's be generous and give them until 70. The daughter is 20 at the most, making this 1987-90. The fashion sense of the film just doesn't fit, it's too modern. Now the Mom was supposedly young when she conceived this daughter of hers; Mom should be at most 40, but probably younger. Meryl Streep could Barely Pass for 40 when she was 40. To me Meryl Streep seemed old when she was young—and here she's trying to play a "40" year old woman tired from being a single Mom for the last 20 years. She turns 50 this year and looks 60 in this move.
 

She get's with her old "Band Mates" from back in the day. who both look older than her, and the three of them act ridiculous, which I know happens with women when they get together, regardless of age, and I buy it coming from her "band mates"—but from Meryl Streep, not at all—this just feels like bad casting to me. In fact, I can honestly say I liked every pat of the movie (that I saw) which did not have Meryl Streep in it. I have never had a movie ruined for me because of an actor/actress. I think this could have been a good movie with someone else cast in that part, but as is, it's not enjoyable—it's down right uncomfortable.

The stinker of a movie went back to the store, and was enthusiastically replaced with three cheap bin movies:

An Ideal Husband—Brilliant, Funny, Theatrical....Romantical, Comedy.

Bride & Prejudice—Bollywood in Spirit, Funny, (especially if you are familiar with Pride & Prejudice, which I am, thanks to my wife)...Romantical, Comedy.

and Chocolat, to replace the one that was borrowed and never came back—Funny, Intelligent...Romantical, Comedic, Dramatic.

See, I'm no film snob, but Mamma Mia!?....Mamma Mia Indeed!

A Person's a Person, No Matter How Small.

So I got Horton Hears a Who for Christmas. The New One. (Some may be unaware that there is an older one, after the success of the Dr. Seuss and Chuck Jones team-up for the Television Classic How the Grinch Stole Christmas, they went on to create a handful of other animated Seuss Tales.) I actually have the old one come to think of it—I'll have to give it a watch.

It's funny how when you are exposed to a certain slice of something, there is a tendancy for your mind to think of that as the whole. For instance, I had never heard of Horton Hears a Who when I was younger. To me Horton was only in Horton Hatches the Egg. I became aware of Horton Hears a Who when my Aunt showed it to me at her home on VHS. I think I was Jr. High age (it appears that is was not released on VHS until 1992, so unless she had it recorded from T.V. that puts us squarely in the Jr. High/High School range). A similar thing happened in my mind with How the Grinch Stole Christmas. I really hate to admit how old I was when I discovered that How the Grinch Stole Christmas was a book before it was a T.V. Special.

Anyway, after The Disaster that was The Cat in the Hat (Movie) I was really apprehensive as to whether this movie would actually be any good. I didn't have much to base that on. First there was the fact that they were pushing the Jim Carrey as Horton so heavily. That's usually a bad sign, that should be a secondary reason for seeing a film. Story is first. Second, they were showing a scene in the trailers that depicted a young who girl wanting a cell phone; and as much as I like the Jim Carrey version of The Grinch, there are certain "Modernizations" in it that still rub me the wrong way every time I watch it. Third, one of the Radio Personalities I listen to was complaining about "Modernizations" that destroy the Timelessness of Seuss' Worlds (He was referring to the cell phone joke as well, but in reflection I don't think he had seen it either).

Now that I've seen it I can say that Pushing Jim Carrey heavily was a great disservice to Steve Carrell, whose voice, acting, and comedic talent lent greatly to this adaptation (I'm sure that had everything to do with the marketing department and contracts).

The Cell Phone Joke was the only modernization in this version, and it did not detract from the story at all; and Yes, It was a good joke.

The Radio Personality is even more of an old codger than I am, so I don't take everything he says to heart, and this is just another one of those instances.

This movie had an underlying message, and unlike most, I really liked it.

The Kangaroo plays the stereotypical head of the (PTA/HOA/Neighborhood Watch/Etc). I think we've all met someone like this. She is constantly trying to take Horton's freedoms from him—"FOR THE GOOD OF THE CHILDREN"—I HATE how many laws get passed because they are for the good of the children (at the expense of freedoms). I tell you, "for the good of the children" is the stinkin' Golden Calf of our local politics. Tax increases especially—that "will go to the schooling of our children," most of which never actually gets into the classrooms, or teacher's salaries. Seriously, this seems to happen every time we vote.

Then there's this whole Consumer Product Safety Act 2008 "Improvement" mandating that retailers test for lead, in products that have NEVER been a problem, instead of punishing China, where we have a track record of problems. Oh, and if you didn't know, the Consumer Product Safety Commission is made up of two people...TWO UNELECTED people given supreme power over what can and cannot be sold in America..."for the good of the children."

This is threatening to put small businesses out of business—which in this state of the economy seems like just a stellar idea, since, you know—unemployment levels aren't high enough. Libraries are worried that they might need to post no children allowed signs—remember this is for the good of the children and libraries are just horrible horrible places for children, because, you know—children have been getting lead poisoning from licking library books for years now. It's about time someone did something. Some people can only afford to buy their kids clothes at thrift stores and until recently, this was threatening to make thrift stores a thing of the past. (Yes, more jobs gone the way of the Dodo) They're not completely off the hook though.

Something tells me that this just wasn't really thought through well before being signed. If this law, "was aimed at Chinese manufacturers who have produced toys tainted with lead." (Congressman Peter DeFazio [D-Oregon]), who co-sponsored the bill) Maybe they should have put something in the law that stipulated that this applies to imported goods.

This law is seriously poised to affect children, because it takes a lot of rights away from adults, it makes manufacturing too expensive (as if the manufacturing industry in America wasn't in enough trouble as is), adults have to support children. children become adults. So, you know, it takes rights away from children too.

A Person's a Person, No Matter How Small after all.

I Am Iron Man

I caught Iron Man this weekend. Unlike all the other super hero movies that have come out in recent years, Iron Man is a story with which I am not familiar. I loved every minute of this movie. I loved Robert Downey Jr's portrayal of Tony Stark. Comic Book movies that are done right, take the source material seriously. In fact they act as though the source material were classic literature. They make sure that all the classic Icons and trappings are in place, though the only one I was even remotely familiar with was S.H.I.E.L.D.. That is not to say that you cannot make fun of the source material. The scenes where Tony was testing the technology were hilarious, in fact, a lot of this movie was hilarious. But unlike some recent Marvel Comics Movies (Namely Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Spider-Man 3, Ghost Rider, X-Men: The Last Stand, Fantastic Four, & Hulk [i.e.nearly every Marvel Comics movie made since 2003]) I was never pulled out of the moment because I lost my suspension of belief. This is one of the greatest super hero movies ever made, which surprised me. I was excited for all of the above listed movies and was let down in varying degrees by all of them, so much so that I didn't buy any of them. I will be buying Iron Man.

Go see it, it's fun.

Batman: finally done right

First time Batman has been done right in the cinematic medium - Batman Begins.
First time Batman has been properly introduced - Generally when the Story Told in Batman Begins has been told in other films it's been glossed over so you can get to the "villian"
The Psycological part of the Batman Mythos is generally skipped.
This movie delved into his guilt, and this movie was the first time you felt for young master Bruce when his parents were gunned down in the alley.
I LOVED that Ras Algul actually made it into a movie - as important he is to the Batman Mythos, he's not very well known by non-Batman afficionados. (until now)
I LOVED how Scarecrow was depicted so Realisticly.

The True Horror of Star Wars

For all of you who hated the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy...

you have not suffered the TRUE HORROR: The Star Wars Holiday Special.
No really, you truly cannot understand exactly how awful Star Wars Could Be until you have endured the full 2 hour Television Event from 1978. I recently acquired a copy and Suffered through the whole Miserable Mess.

It all started when I searched for "Star Wars" on the Internet Movie Database. I was curious about an entry on that came up - The Star Wars Holiday Special.
As I read the comments about it, I thought to myself, "It couldn't possibly be that bad."
So I got a copy, I invited Brian over (because I read that you shouldn't watch alone)
And I was wrong, It was infinitely WORSE!!!

Let me hit what I think the highlights are.
Wookies screaming for 2 hours with no subtitles
Carrie Fischer and Beatrice Arthur singing songs to the tune of Star Wars Tunes
Art Carney Flirting With Bea Arthur
A Perverted Wookie "mind-porn" Film (why a Wookie's Fantasy is a Scantily Clad Human is Beyond Me)
Slow, Slow, Slow, Slow, Slow Editing
A hive of scum and villainy Crying
Truly Bad Acting
No Lightsabers, except for in a flashback to Episode IV
Mark Hamil Looks like a Girl

The Cartoon wasn't too bad though, I could watch that again. In fact, I wish the whole thing were a cartoon. I understand that the same company that did this cartoon, did the Droids and Ewoks cartoons. I'll have to pick those up sometime.

I now understand why George Lucas is quoted as having said, "If I had the time and a sledgehammer, I'd smash every bootleg copy."

Episode III

.
Okay, I just have to put in my 2 cents.
This Movie was great!!!
Episode II was great!!!
Episode I was: you better believe it, great!!!

I guess I'm feeling like the odd man out here, but I like 'em all. And all the criticism sounds the same - I've heard it all, so I don't really want to hear it again.

Everyone and their DOG that criticizes Hayden Christensen comments that his acting is "wooden." Frankly, I was enthralled with the whole story, and not once when watching the film did I step out of engrossed-in-the-moment-mode, to say to myself, "this just doesn't work for me."

This was what they call a tragedy, and my heart sank every time Anikin crept closer to the Dark Side. When order 66 was initiated - that was a sobering moment that everyone in the theater was feeling, it was so heavy you could cut it with a knife.

This is good storytelling. It makes the Saga Complete.

I have so many thoughts about this, that this post is destined to be disjointed and an inadequate representation of every little Nook and Cranny of my Star Wars Thoughts.

Which brings to mind that these are my thoughts, I think that a lot of people that have issues with Star Wars are obsessing over their Feelings. Dwelling upon a nostalgic feeling of how this movie made them feel when they were a kid. That's all fine and dandy, but those feelings can mask truth. For instance, Thundercats. When I was but a lad I watched Thundercats Every Day, I Loved it! I played I was Lion-o and I constructed my own magical sword and sheath (I made a lot of toys that my parents couldn't afford to buy me). The point is, I caught an episode of Thundercats a few years ago on Cartoon Network, and it STUNK!!! It was horrible, I couldn't believe I spent so much time watching such ROT. But my feelings about Thundercats are another story, I still have fond memories of it - but frankly the memory is far better than the truth.

I think there's a similar phenomenon happening with Star Wars, everyone remembers how Cool it was and how great they felt as a kid watching those movies, and when they got older and began to understand the subtleties of the plot it became better. But if we're honest with ourselves, there was all the same elements that are nitpicked in the new Trilogy present in the Originals.
There is bad acting
There is bad dialogue
There are annoying characters
There are superb special effects

I know I know, you don't want to admit it, but it's true.
"But I wanted to go to Bacchi to pick up some power converters," is every bit as horrible as "wahoo" or "I'm beside myself," and, "what a drag." Problem is, that line is remembered fondly, in spite of it's status as both Bad Dialogue and Bad Acting. . . Heck Luke at that point could be considered an annoying character, every bit as whiny as his Father Anikin.

And speaking of annoying characters, let's talk about Jar-Jar Binks. Sure he's annoying, but don't tell me you haven't had to deal with somebody in you life that was completely obnoxious, because if you do - I know you're lying, or too young. Personally I think it adds a bit of realism.

Really I could go on and on like this all day.

But I won't, I'll just sum it up succinctly.
They're all great movies, with a generation spanning story line that enthrall me. Those who say otherwise are dwelling on minutiae and need to relax and maybe, just Maybe, remember that they're just movies and they don't pertain to anything of importance in the eternal scheme of things.