No Excuse: Why the NHL Lockout Is BS

Last week, the National Hockey League and its Players Association failed to reach a contract agreement. As a result, the NHL locked out the players, endangering the 2012-13 season. 

In the weeks leading up to the lockout and likely in the coming weeks as well, we as fans will hear any number of arguments from both sides. The owners have given more revenue to the players than any other professional league. Competition throughout the NHL has never been fiercer under the current system so why change? Small market teams need some help from those in larger markets. Et cetera, et cetera. 

But behind everyone of these arguments is one shrug of the shoulder attitude shared by both sides: hockey is a business. 

That is big load of bull dung. 

Of course, it's a business at one level. The teams sell tickets, t-shirts, jerseys, foam hands and clocks. The players are employees as are vendors and security and the zamboni driver. 

But unlike say an auto parts factory, the NHL and all of its member teams and players are paid on the basis of one beautiful myth, the thing that all of the fans in the world cling to as the puck drops:

At the end of the day, your team is there to compete every shift, win every game and bring the Stanley Cup home to your town. 

It's a gorgeous lie, one that every sports league relies on implicitly. The team owners and general managers want to win it all for you. The players are leaving everything on the ice for you. Every decision the team makes is to bring you that elusive Stanley Cup. It's all for you. 

Until it's not. Until it's "We care about the fans but..." Until it's "The lockout breaks my heart, but..."

You know what? Nothing you say before the word "but" actually counts. 

Most frustrating for the fans is what the actual argument here is about: the percentage of revenue each side gets to keep. The league has done nothing but improve its profile and its financial situation over the last few years. The pie has gotten bigger (thanks to the fans), but everyone is still arguing they are not getting a big enough piece. 

It's like watching my kids fight over the last few crumbs of a bag of potato chips. They both are sitting there with a bigger pile than they should eat, but neither one can stomach the idea of the other having more. So the fight ensues and all the chips end up on the floor. 

So to the NHL and players: settle this now. Get back to selling the fans the fiction that you care about us. It may not be true, but it is after all what you are in the business of peddling.

RMOCJ: Ed Wood

Movies and movie criticism can be terrible, cynical and soul-crushing.  So why do we go to the movie?  Random Moment of Cinematic Joy highlights a moment, scene, character or movie that is awesome in a way that can refill your reservoir of faith in films.

Ed Wood is for me the ultimate cinematic sorbet.  

If I see a terrible movie and need to cleanse my theater-going palette, Tim Burton's ode to the worst director ever is my go-to choice.

I could talk about Johnny Depp's incredible performance as the always smiling title character.  Or Martin Landau's imagining of the old and broken Bela Lugosi.  Or the amazing supporting cast ranging from Patricia Arquette to Jeffrey Jones to Bill Murray to George "The Animal" Steele.  But for me, this is simply the ultimate valentine to Hollywood.

There are scenes that stick with me.  Wood's first interaction with Lugosi as he is coffin shopping.  Wood's random run-in with Orson Welles.  His sheepish, but brave, admission that Wood likes women's clothes.

But the scene that always sticks with me is when Wood begins shooting Glen or Glenda.  They shoot with Wood as the lead looking in a window wistfully.  He yells cut and the crew asks if he wants another take.  Wood immediately answers that no, the shot is perfect.  But that description minimizes the moment.  Depp's Wood is filled with energy and optimism.  It's not the shot that's perfect; it's the fact that he is being allowed to do the thing he loves.  He's not a terrible director because of a lack of ability or an ego (though those are factors).  No, he's a terrible director because he loves the medium so much.

Ed Wood makes me smile like no other movie.  And it makes me anxious to head to the theaters again and give myself completely over to the cast and crew of storytellers whether it's a blockbuster or an independent.

Comic Pop: Nemesis TPB

So Mark Millar has apparently found his career niche: looking at some comic book trope and making a book about that.  In Kick-Ass, you get an ineffective Spiderman-like character and a way too young female assassin.  In Nemesis, we get the tale of a rich playboy who uses his toys to buy all sorts of gadgets, cars and planes, but instead of fighting crime (like so Bruce Wayne), he is targeting the world's best police officers.  That premise itself has loads of potential.

Unfortunately, that's where the creativity ends.

I'm assuming Millar saw Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight.  So why he is copying that movie exactly?  A black Batmobile with a motorcycle hidden in it becomes a white sports car with a motorcycle hidden in it.  The Joker wanted to get thrown in jail so he can escape, and so does Nemesis.  At least the Joker had a reason.

Once the book telegraphs that everything Nemesis does is part of his plan, the book becomes completely uninteresting.  Everytime something happens, we know what's coming next.  Hell, Nemesis himself is constantly telling his pursuers and captors that he meant to do whatever happens.

The book both wants to be grounded in a sort of reality and then be completely ridiculous.  Nemesis at one point lands on Air Force One while it is in flight, and starts walking around.  They never explain how he stays on (magnetic boots maybe), but the absurdity of someone actually being able to move let alone avoid being crushed by the wind?  It's silly and takes you out of the book.

The only saving grace is Steve McNiven's art.  At one point, Nemesis captures the President and Millar only treats him as a pawn on the chessboard, a plot device.  A couple of McNiven panels provide that sense of what is really at stake in a way the script fails to do.

Silly, stupid and predictable, with an ending twist that seems tacked on as a "we could write another series if this does well" ending, Nemesis is best avoided by anyone who wants more from a book than blood and swearing.

* out of *****

Superman: War of the Supermen Book 3 TPB

Written by James Robinson

Really?

I have never in my life seen such a big, blinking reset button hit in a comic book.  I am struggling to think of when a comic has so transparently moved itself back to square one.

I have actually enjoyed a lot of the New Krypton tale.  For those catching up, the bottle city of Kandor from Superman's home planet became a community on Earth, complete with people with the powers of Superman.  Humans distrust the Kryptonians and after some sabotage between the two races, the Kryptonians establish a new planet that mirrors Earth's orbit.  General Sam Lane (Lois Lane's father who was thought to be dead) leads a plan that involves Braniac and Lex Luthor to destroy New Krypton.  The end of volume 2 had the Kryptonians' military leader (and Superman arch-villain) General Zod declaring war on Earth.

(SPOILERS AHEAD) I am not even going to get into the arc of this story as it is pretty slight (especially considering it is a full scale war between thousands of Superman-like beings and Earth).  To put it in some perspective, at one point Luthor launches a rocket that turns the yellow sun into a red sun, negating the Kryptonians' powers.  Within a minute, this major development is undone by someone from Superman's extended family.  Within a minute.

The ending really colors the entire run of James Robinson for me.  In the end, Mon-El, Zod, Non and Ursa are all back in the Phantom Zone.  Flamebird is dead.  Nightwing (no relation to Batman's Nightwing) is in the Phantom Zone to keep an eye on Zod.  General Lane who surprisingly was not dead at the beginning of the series, killed himself at the end.  I am hard-pressed to think of a new character who survived any of the goings on here.

The art is good.  I prefer the more human, less ridiculously muscular depictions of Superman and he is handled well in the graphic novel.  There's a lot of characters and a lot of different locations and they are all detailed and beautifully drawn.

This was a real disappointment.  A story that felt like it was building to a dramatic showdown just kind of petered out.  Superman's new status quo is the same as before the New Krypton story arc.  Meh.

** out of *****

New Green Lantern Footage!

After some not-so-great images and a widely derided trailer, how long does it take for Warner Bros. to completely restore my faith in this film?  Apparently about four minutes and two seconds.  This captures exactly the tone I'm looking for.

The Adjustment Bureau (2011)

Directed by George Nolfi
Starring Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, John Slattery and Terence Stamp

What is free will? Do we have a soulmate? Are we the masters of our destiny? Or are we simply pawns being pushed around a chess board as part of some greater plan?

These questions and others are glossed over or ignored entirely through some of the worst dialogue and ridiculous scenarios of the year in The Adjustment Bureau.

Matt Damon plays a congressman running for Senate who falls in love with Emily Blunt's ballet dancer. Only the grand plan calls for him not to fall in love her. Enter the Adjustment Bureau to help reset the board by some subtle mental manipulation. And the use of doors. And hats. Lots of hats.

The cast is great. Damon and Blunt have real chemistry. John Slattery leads the Adjustment Bureau members in their day to day operations which requires him to wear a suit and he's more than proven an aptitutde for that on Mad Men.

The biggest problem is the script. I hate watching a movie where I am consciously rewriting the dialogue while I am watching it. The movie could have shown us how the Adjustment Bureau works. Or it could have left the bureau as a mysterious force, making us wonder if everything that happens was chance or done by design. Instead, it shows the bureau members standing around, talking about what a pain Matt Damon is.

The rules they operate under are inconsistent. At one point, Slattery trips Damon with a flick of his mind. So why do the members of the Bureau spend the entire movie chasing Damon? They threaten to reset Damon's mind if he goes against them, he goes against them constantly, and they... complain. Don't get me wrong. It's REALLY dramatic complaining.

The movie is unnecessarily crowded with characters.  The Bureau has a lot of members we are introduced to throughout the film, but most of them were unnecessary. Hell, two of the main members (Slattery and Stamp) were completely interchangeable.

The central thesis of the movie is that free will and love should win out over the idea of a divine plan. But does the movie even support that? Damon and Blunt end up together, but it's made clear that it is because the divine plan gets rewritten to support that. They still aren't really in control.

The Adjustment Bureau is not as smart as it pretends to be. It's a five-year old child who learns some big words, but has no understanding of their meaning. Sure, it sounds cute to hear him stumble over multi-syllabic words and use them in nonsensical ways, but you aren't about to take that seriously. No matter how hard the child wants you to.

*1/2 out of *****

Trailer Pop: Hangover 2

Trailer for The Hangover 2 below:




I have a mixed reaction.  Of course it feels familiar (it's a sequel) and the jokes aren't as strong as the original's trailer (the tiger, the baby, Mike Tyson), but it's great to see the Wolfpack again and perhaps they are holding back the best stuff as they know this will do some business.  Oh, and Ed Helms is brilliant.  His reaction to the tattoo and the sequence in the car look like they are worth the price of admission.

Pop Century: Safety Last!

Our latest update at 100 Years of Movies is Harold Lloyd's classic Safety Last! from 1923.  Give it a look if you have a moment.

Comic Pop: Batman: The Return of Bruce Wayne

Written by Grant Morrison

Pencils by A Whole Lot of Characters 

It's been a rough year for Batman.

Between Batman R.I.P. and Final Crisis, he seemed to get killed twice.  Only one time, he was (in the words of Miracle Max) only mostly dead, and the other his apparent death sent him hurtling back in time.  Bruce's prodigies set out to fill the void.  Dick Grayson (formerly Nightwing) took up the mantle of the bat and became surrogate father to Damian (the new Robin and Bruce's biological son).  Tim Drake became Red Robin and had run-ins with the League of Assassins in his efforts to prove Bruce was still alive.

All of this leads to The Return of Bruce Wayne, a six issue arc collected in a graphic novel format.

The basic story is this: Bruce was thrown back in time by Darkseid.  He starts in the caveman era living in the very caves that would become his fortress, and begins leaping forward through time.  He becomes a witchhunter, a pirate, a cowboy and a noir-like detective.  He begins with no memory, but each step in his journey gives him a little more information about who he is.

Meanwhile, the Justice League is trying to prevent Batman's return.  They have discovered that with each jump in time, Wayne builds up more omega energy and when he reaches the 21st century: boom!  Game over.

Grant Morrison is a fascinating writer and the story here is universally compelling.  The narrative is pretty loose throughout, but I think that suits the story well.  Each of the tales is recounted almost as a half-remembered dream rather than a dense story.  And that's okay, because Morrison's got bigger fish to fry.

In telling the tale, Morrison burns Batman down and reconstructs from the ashes.  We see him as primal force, vigilante and detective.  We see the echoes of enemies from the Joker to Two-Face.  Each piece provides a mirror for who Batman has been and what he has become.  In telling the tale, Morrison both reveals Batman's character and better integrates the mythos of Batman into the history of the DC Universe.

The weakest part of the tale is the framing device which should give the finale its stakes.  When you are reading a tale of Bruce Wayne jumping through time and title it "The Return of Bruce Wayne," you've already given us the end.  The story that takes place at "the vanishing point" is narratively dense to the point of becoming incomprehensible in parts.  It's never clear exactly what bad thing will happen.  Bruce himself dismisses the threat as just another monster for his friends to beat up.

The art is universally great with the exception of the western tale penciled by Georges Jeanty (who was so reliable on the Buffy the Vampire Slayer books).  The scarred half of Jonah Hex's face looks like someone just took an eraser to it.  Many of the characters are difficult to differentiate from one another, making the story really hard to follow.

On the whole, this is a great arc.  I love seeing a crazily creative Morrison set loose on such a tent pole character.

****1/2 out of *****

The Absentee Landlord

So, a couple of years ago, I purchased the property called Pop Went the Culture.  It was shiny and new and I had some fun posting random thoughts about television and movies.  However, soon afterward I put a deposit down on another gorgeous space called 100 Years of Movies.  I became a little obsessive about my new property and stopped coming around here.

So I was shocked (SHOCKED) to discover as I swung by my old haunt that the windows were cracked and broken, the paint was falling off the sides and the landscaping has gone to hell.  I was an absentee landlord and I'd created blog blight here on the interwebs.

This will not stand.

Starting today, I'll try to do better.  You will see movie, television and comic reviews.  You will see my thoughts on crap I see going.  Sometimes it may only be a few sentences (did I mention I have four kids), but things should start to improve.

It's Green Lantern!

Yesterday, the trailer hit for the new Green Lantern movie starring Ryan Reynolds. Green Lantern is my second favorite comic book character in the universe (behind The Flash). Of course that made me both excited and nervous for a big screen adaptation. Going in, I thought the property had the most cinematic potential, but also the most propensity to go off the rails.

So what did I think. The trailer rocks. Reynolds makes a great Hal Jordan. He's cocky, but still uncertain about whether he can shoulder the responsibility. The glimpses we get of Sinestro and Hector Hammond are fantastic. And a movie with Kilowog and Tomar Re! Awesome. The only two pieces that I'm unsure of are Blake Lively as Carol Ferris and the suit itself. Lively has one line at the beginning of the trailer that felt wooden. We'll see there. And we never really see the CGI suit in motion. I had that concern going in and still do.

All in all, this has a great look and an epic scale. Can. Not. Wait.

Inebriation: An Inception Parody

There are a lot of Inception parodies out there.  This is one of my faves:

iListened to... The /Filmcast

iListened to... is a column of movie, television and pop culture podcast reviews.  Between work and kids, I don't have a lot of time to catch up on film news.  These are my thoughts on what I am listening to on my commute or at the gym.

The /Filmcast
Hosted by David Chen, Devindra Hardawar and Adam Quigley
Focus: Primarily film, but also television and film criticism

/Filmcast was the first podcast I ever started following on a regular basis so (spoiler alert!) needless to say I am a fan.  Each week, the /film website releases two podcasts: the flagship podcast (which airs live most Sunday or Monday nights) and an "After Dark" episode.  The main podcast includes discussions on what the hosts have been watching that week, film news and a longer featured movie review.  The After Dark can include any topic, ranging from listener email to more in depth discussions on casting or other movie news.


There are a number of things I love about this podcast.  First, it is amongst the most well-produced podcasts out there.  The audio is always great.  They treat every podcast as though it may be your first exposure to them.  David Chen introduces every episode with a brief description of the podcast and briefly introduces each subsequent section.  It's a minor detail, but when you are listening to another podcast and they just start talking without any context, you come to appreciate the details.  You never get lost within this podcast which is a definite widespread failing amongst the podcasting community.

The hosts are all knowledgeable, opinionated and well-spoken.  Again, there are a lot of hosts that seem content to turn on a microphone with some friends and see what happens.  The /Filmcast trio always brings their "A" game and it shows in the presentation.  Chen, as the host, is ready at a moment's notice to provide further information about every film and television show they discuss.  That said, they are also clearly friends and colleagues and engage in good-natured ribbing throughout the episode.

/Filmcast also regularly features a fourth guest host.  Usually, it is a fellow film blogger like Matt Singer from IFC News, the guys from The Totally Rad Show or Katie Rich from Cinema Blend.  However, they have also attracted notable directors.  In fact, Rian Johnson (Brick, The Brothers Bloom) has developed into David Chen's arch-nemesis on the podcast (and I meant that in the most hilarious possible way).

Two more minor elements of the podcast that I appreciate as a listener.  First, while it is an "explicit" podcast, the language is pretty tame.  Profanity is usually used to punctuate an opinion or reveal how deep the hate goes for a particular casting choice.  I don't need my movie news to come with an R rating.  Second, the hosts are committed to avoiding spoilers unless they give the listener fair warning.  Lately, they have taken this to the extreme of bleeping out spoilers that inadvertently were revealed during an episode.  I know I'm not going to have to worry about getting a plot detail revealed unless I decide to hear it.

However, the thing that truly sets /Film apart in my eyes is the mirror it holds up to the film community.  The most striking example of this was a recent episode with guest host Armond White of New York Press.  White is best known as a contrarian reviewer, one who goes against the popular grain to praise Transformers 2 and tear down Inception. 

During the film review and After Dark, the hosts pressed White, but never debated him.  As a result, listeners were treated to a fascinating discussion of the state of film criticism and an alternative view of what makes a motion picture art.  I didn't come away agreeing with White, but he gave me a lot to think about (which is more than you can expect from most podcasts).


Notable recent episodes: 

• /Filmcast Ep. 100 - Robin Hood (GUEST: Rian Johnson, Director of Breaking Bad) 
• /Filmcast Ep. 109 - Inception (GUEST: Armond White from New York Press) 
• The /Filmcast: After Dark - Ep. 109 - The State of Film Criticism and Inception Theories (GUEST: Armond White from New York Press) 
• Ep. 112 - Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (GUEST: Jeff Cannata from the Totally Rad Show) 
• The /Filmcast: After Dark - Ep. 112 - Clapping After Movies (GUEST: Jeff Cannata from The Totally Rad Show) 
• Ep. 121 – Paranormal Activity 2 (GUEST: C. Robert Cargill from Ain’t It Cool News)

Available at /Film or iTunes

Disney's Seven

99 percent of movie parodies are meh.  Then I see something like this...

from TrendHunter

Shrek 4: The Final... Nail

So we finally saw Shrek 4 at the local second run theater.  Capsule review of it: not as bad as I was expecting based on the reviews, but would not have been happy to pay more than $2 per person for it.

Of course, the film is subtitled "The Final Chapter."  My hope is it is the final nail.

When Shrek debuted in 2001, it was a kick to the groin (and I mean that in a good way).  Computer animated kids' movies consisted of the latest Pixar release and... the short movie they would show before the Pixar release.  The only real challenge to Pixar was Antz (aka, the other ant-centered movie released the same year as A Bug's Life).  You remember that one, right?  Woody Allen, Sylvester Stallone, Jennifer Lopez, Sharon Stone... yeah, didn't think so.

Shrek comes out and immediately it is rightfully hailed as a legitimate alternative to Pixar and Disney.  Hell, part of it's charm was the sand it kicked in the face of Disney.  Farquaad's castle is a thinly veiled mockery of The Magic Kingdom and Shrek and Donkey's arrival at the castle is still my favorite scene in any Shrek movie.

The original Shrek had all of the flatulence jokes the kids love and all of the pop cultural references that keep the adults from clawing their eyes out.  It had the wise-cracking sidekick.  It was a winning formula...

...that has been beaten into the ground for the last decade.  Call me a spoilsport, but almost every non-Pixar release for the last ten years has seemed like a pale imitation of that original Shrek.  It doesn't feel like Shrek has three sequels; it feels like it has dozens.  Ice Age.  Over the Hedge.  Open Season.  Shark Tale.  Ugh.

The Shrek series itself has never come close to the fun of the first.  It received a slight shot in the arm from the introduction of Puss in Boots, but Shrek ultimately became the very thing is was mocking: the excesses of cartoon marketing.  And the giddy, subversive thrill got sucked right out of Far Far Away.

Then a funny thing happened.  Over the last two years, computer animated movies became fun again.  Not by rediscovering that "Shrek formula" everyone had tried to copy, but by telling good, original stories.  I liked Monster House and Monsters vs. Aliens.  I love Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs.  I LOVE How to Train Your Dragon.  They are visually rich movies, with characters I care about and writing that serves the story and not the audience.  And nary a pop cultural reference or wise-cracking supporting character amongst them.

So it seems appropriate to me that this would be the moment for Shrek: The Final Chapter.  It is time to close the book on Shrek, Ice Age and the rest of the imitators out there.  Hopefully, we are entering a new era where computer animated films rely on good storytelling to engage audiences of all ages.  Hopefully.

Image from unrealitymag.com

Pop In and Watch This: Arrested Development

Available on DVD, Netflix Watch Instantly and IFC

The wife and I have become addicted to Modern Family (Wednesdays, 9:00 EST, ABC).  Most reviewers refer to it as the best new comedy of the season.  For me, it's the best comedy on TV right now.  The writers seem to be mining the show's premise for every laugh possible.  I love Phil, love Manny, love Gloria.  I love the screwed up family dynamics.

Which of course brings me to Arrested Development.  For those unfamiliar with the show, it was a Fox comedy that premiered in November 2003.  Broad critical acclaim and a cult following gave it two renewals, but low ratings finally caught up with it and Fox canceled the show in February 2006.

The show follows the travails of the Bluth family, whose patriarch (played by Jeffrey Tambor) is jailed in the pilot for defrauding investors in his real estate company.  Michael Bluth (Jason Bateman) is the duty-bound son attempting to keep the family from imploding.  No easy feat as he has to contend with a narcissistic sister, her bad-psychiatrist-turned-worse-actor husband, an older brother who aspires to be a magician, a younger brother struggling to get away from his domineering mother and a son who has a crush on his cousin.

Like Modern Family, Arrested Development sets up a series of situations in each episode and then wrings every last ounce of humor from the setup.  Sometimes, this means the pay off for a joke may happen seasons later. 

I recently rewatched Season 2 for the third time and it is amazing how well this show stands up to repeated viewings.  If anything, it's funnier the second and third time.  The various references to hands and seals are even funnier once you learn the youngest brother's fate half way through this season.

During the third season, an already meta show goes even more hilariously over the top as it approaches its near-certain cancellation.  One episode contains very thinly veiled references to HBO and Showtime, two networks that were considering picking up the show.  Sadly for fans, Mitch Hurwitz, the show's creator decided he'd had enough and the show ended.

A movie is still being discussed, but frankly I'll believe it when I see it.  This show was a launching pad for a cast that has gone on to become stars in their own right (Bateman and Michael Cera especially).  I can't imagine a studio taking a chance on a poorly rated show that ended five years ago with the salaries a lot of the players would command.  David Cross, who plays Tobias, said as much in this interview with TV Squad.

No matter what happens with the Bluths on the big screen, we will always have three of the funniest seasons of television to watch.  Over and over again.

KickAss, "Realistic" Violence and the Role of Parents

Kick-Ass hit this weekend and by all accounts is an entertaining and critically well-received movie.

Oh, and it's also apparently the most morally reprehensible film ever projected in a multiplex.

At issue is Hit Girl, an 11-year-old cursing, killing machine who cares about nothing in life except her vengeance seeking father and getting that new butterfly knife for her birthday.  According to some, including Roger Ebert with SPOILERS, this takes things one step too far.

"This isn't comic violence. These men, and many others in the film, are really stone-cold dead. And the 11-year-old apparently experiences no emotions about this. Many children that age would be, I dunno, affected somehow, don't you think, after killing eight or 12 men who were trying to kill her?"

The fundamental issue for Ebert and other reviewers is that Kick-Ass depicts realistic superheroes performing realistic violence.  That Hit Girl will be emulated and that 11 year-old girls will suddenly take a shot at being cold-blooded assassins.

Really?

First, on this being a real world depiction and realistic violence: yes, the high school and its inhabitants seem very grounded in the real world (or at least as real a world as Hollywood ever creates in high school movies).  There are nerds and bullies and beautiful girls who are unaware of the main character's existence.  However, the movie takes a hard right turn into an unrealistic world early in the film.  When?

When Hit Girl and her father appear on screen.

The movie at that point stops even pretending at realism.  It's absurdist.  The humor in the situation comes not because we as an audience find 11-year-old killers hysterical.  It's because the girl's existence is so incongruent with reality, it is funny.

Now is this character engaged in realistic violence?  In the world of movie criticism, yes.  In the real world, no.  See, "realistic violence" in the official movie critic's dictionary means "blood."  As in, you stab a charcter they bleed.  You shoot them they bleed.  If you aim a gun, pull a trigger and the person falls over, it's not realistic.  Do the same and their head explodes, it is realistic.

So yes there is "realistic violence."  And much of it is perpetrated by a character whose existence is not realistic.  Using weapons that are not exactly off-the-shelf at Walmart.  Even the use of the normal weapons is fantastical.  In the trailer, Hit Girl shifts her head to avoid a bullet (as though a bee had just buzzed by her head), releases two empty clips from her gun, throws two full clips into the air and has them land back in the gun in one fluid motion.  That is what passes for realistic violence.

There's more I could say about the film itself, but I'll close on this note for parents: this is not a movie for kids.  There are clues to this.  It is rated R.  Its title is Kick-Ass.  There are a lot of reviews that give you the detail you need.  If you are thinking of letting them go, see it yourself first.  If you are still going to let them see it, have a conversation about it.  In short, parents should parent.  That goes for all movies, but this one more than most.

You like math. You like movies. You'll love...

...these graphic representations of famous movies.  From FlowingData through David Chen at /Film.

Watch THIS Instantly... Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze

Who Is It For... 
Primarily my 7-year-old boy (though my 5-year-old girl and 2-year-old boy are digging it as well)

What's It About...
This is the sequel to the first live action TMNT movie. It follows the continuing adventures of four pizza-loving, wise-cracking turtles who battle evil under the watchful eye of a wise old rat.  In this movie, the turtles' enemy Shredder discovers the secret to the turtles' power and creates his own mutants.  Chaos ensues.

Why Kids Will Love It...
Pizza.  Martial arts.  Turtles. 

Parental Cheat Sheet...
The turtles wear different colors.  Leonardo wears blue and is the leader.  Raphael wears red and has a temper.  Michaelangelo is the comic relief and wears orange.  Donatello is the smart one and wears purple.

The rat is their teacher and is named Splinter.

Wrestling Fans!  Kevin Nash plays Super Shredder.  

Running Time...
88 Minutes

Parental Advisory...
Cartoonish violence and some minor profanity

Available on...
Netflix Watch Instantly

Did Hollywood Really Learn Anything? (and Other Questions Raised by Avatar)

We are in what is likely the final big weekend for Avatar as Alice in Wonderland takes over the valuable 3-D real estate next weekend (assuming this does not come to pass). So it's a good time to review not just the film, but it's impact on film-making...

1. James Cameron remains box office champ. There were a lot of questions leading up to Avatar's release, to say nothing of Ferngully and Smurf jokes. When it's all said and done, Cameron owns the new domestic and international box office records. He beat his own records set with Titanic and did it with his very next major theatrical release. There are plenty of criticisms about the movie, but nobody, NOBODY, knows Hollywood like the self-proclaimed King of the World. All of which leads us to...

2. Will Hollywood learn the right lessons? The out-of-the gate answer is a resounding "no." Avatar became a box office juggernaut for a few reasons: 1) 3-D technology, 2) timing, and 3) word of mouth. The 3-D technology is the biggest miscalculation going on in Hollywood economics today. Avatar is a successful 3-D movie because, at every phase of production, it was designed to be a 3-D movie. What you see on the screen is a director understanding the technology and using it to draw an audience into a new world. Simply converting a movie like Clash of the Titans to 3-D in post-production can never be as effective. Sure, studios will earn a premium on the initial weeks of release. But when the next 3-D movie is right around the corner, the movie's time in relatively scarce 3-D theaters will be cut short. Avatar did not have anything to boot it from those 3-D screens until this week, and has had great word of mouth as a movie that can only be experienced in some stadium seating. None of the movies heading to theaters now will have those benefits.

3. Weta Worksop is a powerhouse. For the better part of 30 years, ILM was the only game in town for major studio releases. Then a small independent film based on an obscure author's work placed Weta Workshop in New Zealand on the map as its first real competitor. The company's work on Avatar has leapfrogged it beyond ILM. Now, even George Lucas' best buddy Steven Spielberg is hanging with kiwis to play with newest toys. In the same way ILM was Lucas' true legacy, Weta is quickly becoming Peter Jackson's.

4. Remember the international markets. At its heart, Avatar told a simply story with whiz-bang special effects and great action set pieces. It's made more than the GDP of countries like Liberia and Bhutan. A lot of the reason is that it translates really well everywhere while offering visuals no one has ever seen. For those who thought the plot and dialogue of Avatar was insipid, guess what? Expect a lot more where that came from.

5. Electronics companies better getting working on the home theater 3-D systems really fast. The hemorraging of the DVD market is something that has been covered a lot. However, in exchange for that $3 dollar premium for 3-D glasses, studios are going to lose even more DVD sales. A great 3-D experiences requires you to sit in a theater. The Avatar: Special Edition Director's Cut on the average television screen just won't cut it. I would expect Avatar to sell a lot of DVDs, but ultimately consumers are going to learn that they can't replicate the theater experience at home. Sony and others are starting to address this, but it will be years before your average household can match the full immersion the viewer gets in Avatar. I personally am in no way jonesing for my own DVD copy of Pandora as I know it can do nothing but disappoint.

I loved Avatar and will probably try catch it one last time on the big 3-D screen. It is having a bigger impact on film-making, marketing and distribution. And, frankly that is not entirely a great thing.

Seven-year-olds, Gremlins and Santa Claus (or How I Learned to Pre-Screen All Films)

So, I'm looking for a non-traditional Christmas movie to show my seven-year-old son and remember one of my favorite movies from my youth Gremlins.

Gremlins is of course the 1984 fantasy comedy about what happens when the recipient of a small creature fails to observe three seemingly innocuous rules. Chaos ensues as the town is overrun by Gremlins. The entire story takes place during Christmas time in a small town.

So, Devin and I are watching the film and I, having not seen the movie for many years, am remembering scenes as they come up and giggling to myself as I realize how much fun Devin is going to have with each moment of increasing mayhem.

But...

There is a scene late in the movie when Phoebe Cates explains to Zach Galligan why she hates Christmas. I instantly remember that she is about to describe in vivid detail how her father sought to surprise her by dressing as Santa and climbing down the chimney (note to fathers out there: this is a fundamentally stupid idea; fathers are capable of stupid things, but we are talking Darwin award here). The father becomes stuck, DIES, and then is found by his daughter when she tries to start a fire (again, I don't usually allow my own children to start fires in the house, but...).

Luckily, I remember this just before it happens and choose that moment to ask my son about his day. The scene seemingly ends and my son has heard none of it. Then Phoebe Cates offers this coda:

"And that's how I found out there was no Santa Claus."

My jaw drops. My son turns to me with this curious look and says...

"Wait a minute...."

I hold my breath for the inevitable question.

"...there's no Santa Claus..."

I have crushed a little boy's sense of wonder...

"...in this movie?"

I pause.

"I guess not. This movie must not have a Santa Claus. Isn't that weird?"

"Yeah, that's really weird."

Note to parents: Let this be a cautionary tale. Always prescreen your movies. Even if you've seen it before. You may also want to read the screenplay and interview the director if possible.

Pop by and Watch

What are we watching tonight?

How I Met Your Mother - Will Ted finally meet his future wife? Is Robin pregnant with Barney's baby? Does Lily get paid by the episode or by the minute (if it's by the minute, she needs a fundraiser)? Will we see the goat? Tonight's episode will be legen-wait for it-dary.

24 - Will Jack Bauer lay the smack down on Tony? Will Kim get herself into some ridiculous situation? Will Jack survive his illness? I'm not tuning in for the answers; I'm tuning in to figure out how they get to 'Yes.'

What to watch this summer

Last weekend saw the arrival of my second-most-anticipated of the summer. So what else has me squirming to get back into a seat with cookie dough bites and Coke?

1. Inglourious Basterds - Sorry to all the other summer flicks, but any Quentin Tarantino movie instantly pops to the top of my list. The teaser trailer for this Brad Pitt WWII film looks like more fun than we deserve during the summer. Definitely not for the kids. Trailer

2. Star Trek - I am not a Trekkie, Trekker, Trekee, whatever term they use these days. I am a big fan of JJ Abrams. Cloverfield, Alias, Lost, Fringe, Mission Impossible III, even Felicity were great. The cast here looked great and the movie is exactly what you need during the summer: lots and lots of fun.

3. Terminator: Salvation - Okay, I've been converted. The movie I was least excited about six months ago is now near the top of my list. The trailers and the cast have me sold. I still worry about McG, but it's hard to ignore the talent involved here. Trailer

4. Drag Me to Hell - Sam Raimi returns to horror? And you wonder why this is on the list? Go watch the Evil Dead trilogy. Trailer

5. Up - Is there a more reliable name in movies than Pixar right now? They put the story first, cast voice actors who embody there characters perfectly and tell tales no one else is telling. Old man sets off in his house flown by hundreds of helium balloons. What's not to love? Trailer

6. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - I hate 99% of what Michael Bay does, but Bay and Transformers go together like peanut butter and jelly. He finally has found a property uniquely suited to his fetish for army equipment and female midriffs. The sequel looks like the first cranked up to 11. Trailer

Dishonorable Mention

X-Men Origins: Wolverine - Saw this one as though I was checking something off of the to-do list. It was better than I was expecting, but I went in with zero expectation. It's a movie that basically bounces from cliche to cliche with zero sense of style. Marvel has been the second most reliable name in movies (after Pixar), but even the trailers looked meh.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra - I spent a fair amount of my childhood engaged in battle in my basement between the forces of G.I. Joe and Cobra. I dropped a lot of money of Larry Hama's G.I. Joe comic books. Both experiences look much better than the trailers for Stephen Sommers flick. The Eiffel Tower scene looks good, but most other things just seem pointlessly goofy. Only saving grace? The cast actually looks pretty good here.

Comedy - There may yet be a surprise this summer, but there is nothing with a lot of buzz attached to it. I know comedy is more difficult, but where is it? Maybe Year One won't disappoint, but it looks pretty forgettable.

The end of JJ Abrams week

So Lost had it's finale this week. Star Trek came out last weekend. Two absolutely amazing events.

Let's start with Lost. The show had its best opening since Jack awoke in the forest following the plane crash. The Black Rock, the statue, Jacob and... well, whoever he was. It ends with Sayid and Juliet seemingly dying, Locke not being Locke and finally finding out what lies in the shadow of the statue. Oh, and an H-bomb detonation. I've stopped with theorizing about the show and am just enjoying the ride.

Lost remains television's grandest experiment. When they decided to put an end date on the show two seasons ago, the writing improved and every episode gives the story momentum. Many other serial television shows would have benefited from similar decisions (I'm looking in your general direction, X-Files). ABC should be commended for both taking schedule chances and seeing them pay off.

As for Star Trek, it seems like every year there is a successful franchise reboot and this is it for 2009. Abrams Star Trek is the first to combine 'thrilling' and 'fun' into the same Star Trek movie. Every actor manages to capture the original without doing an impression of them. Better yet, it's one I can see my almost seven-year-old handling. If it's not the best movie of the summer, it'll have to be in the top three.

About this blog, thing, whatever...

I am a geek, nerd, choose your own popular turn of phrase. I love movies, TV, comics, youtube, facebook, etc. I particularly love sci-fi and super heroes, though comedy, horror, and foreign films also dot my Netflix queue.

I am also a husband, father of two and state employee. I love playing with my kids, quiet evenings with the missus and trying to solve the latest budget problems at work.

This blog is where those two worlds collide. How can I watch the latest episode of Lost or Supernatural on the DVR without the scarring the kids for life? When are my kids ready for Star Wars? Lord of the Rings? Zombie movies (heh)?

Sometimes, this will be a movie review or television review. Sometimes it will be navigating the rivers of pop culture with the kids in tow. Sometimes just whatever is on my mind. Whatever happens I hope it is entertaining!