Clerks III is Not Good

I've been a Kevin Smith fan since my teens, and it pains me to say that Clerks 3 is a misfire on practically every front. From the intrusive music running under every scene, to the bloated and mostly useless cast, this film is a mess to watch play out.

When we last left our intrepid heroes at the end of Clerks 2, Dante (Brian O'Halloran), finally learned that he should "shit or get off the pot" and take control of his horrible lot in life. And he did, marrying Becky (Rosario Dawson) and partnering up with his best friend Randal (Jeff Anderson) to buy the Quick Stop. He had finally turned his life around, becoming his own boss, finding a partner who respected and understood him, and growing his relationship with his best friend to a healthier, more mature place.

As Clerks 3 opens, it's revealed that Becky died in a car accident that also took the life of her and Dante's child. This could have been for budgetary reasons (Dawson is far and away the most high-profile actor in the film, outside of cameos), but in a movie full of characters with nothing to do, her omission felt more like a fridging than anything else. This regresses Dante past Clerks 2, and even before his "I'm not even supposed to be here" stuck-in-a-rut days of the first movie. Dante is now in a full-blown depression, and while O'Halloran does an admirable job acting his ass off, this decision feels so bizarre and mean-spirited to a character we've rooted for for 30 years that it's almost laughable.

Smith's other alter ego, Randal Graves, is about the same as we left him, misanthropic and proud of it. But when he suffers a massive heart attack, he decides to do something with his life and make a movie about his experiences.

One of the big reasons Clerks worked so well was because Dante, the sad sack everyman who was desperate to fit in with society and get his due, and Randal, the outspoken destroyer of unspoken societal rules, worked so well together. They were two halves of the same whole. The character that society shat on, and the one who shat back. And I’d argue that for the young, unknown aspiring filmmaker Kevin Smith, they were two halves of him, too.

Clerks 3 sees them in what amounts to two different movies. Dante is dealing with the literal ghosts of his past while Randal runs around with Elias (Trevor Fehrman), Jay (Jason Mewes), and Silent Bob (Smith) as he tries to make a movie that is mostly cobbled together elements from Clerks 1 with a few from Clerks 2. And I’m not sure if that’s supposed to be a meta-commentary, but nearly every joke is also repeated from those movies. There is no new material in this film, and while Smith’s movies have always been an intertextual experience, each one stood on its own as a coherent story. Clerks 3 does not. If you aren’t familiar with every film, interview, and podcast featuring Kevin Smith, Clerks 3 is nearly unapproachable. Anything that is new is an NFT joke that immediately dates the movie and shows how out of touch Smith has become.

The movie’s ending sees Dante suffer a heart attack that ultimately kills him. But before he dies, Randal rushes to finish the final cut of his movie (which is, of course, the original Clerks), featuring Dante as the protagonist, to show Dante what an inspiration he’s been. But it all feels so hollow. While Randal ran around making his movie, Dante was ignored by him, fighting his own demons alone. The movie attempts to rectify this, but the ending is rushed, and the emotion doesn’t land. What should have been a cap for the 30-year friendship between these two guys feels like a footnote.

This film is mostly autobiographical. Smith suffered a heart attack and nearly died. His survival and the new joy he's found in filmmaking are great. I wish the man nothing but the best, as even when he makes bad films, he’s still a good guy making sure his friends have steady work. His fanbase is loyal to him, and he is to them. That’s who his films are for, and most of those people were always going to love this movie because of that. And that’s fantastic.

But between this movie and Jay and Silent Bob Reboot, it feels like he’s an artist who has run out of things to say.

Smith said in interviews for Clerks 3 that at one point he saw himself as Dante, but after his career took off, that was no longer true. So in a way, this movie feels like Smith killing the everyman part of himself that spawned Clerks and his career in the first place. It feels out of touch, with no real emotion and a handful of jokes from old movies to keep the engine chugging. And as Smith speaks over the end credits (which is also baffling—didn’t he write and direct and perform I the film? And he STILL couldn’t get his story across without doing a voiceover?), he tells us how Randal lived into his 90s and looks back on his days of menial, underappreciated labor in the Quick Stop fondly, leaving me to wonder how he has so completely misunderstood his own work.

And that’s when I understood. Dante, the put-upon everyman is dead. Randal, the filmmaker with nothing to say lives on. 

So, Uh... Did You Guys Hear There's a New Ghostbusters Coming Out?

The internet is firing on all cylinders lately as the Ghostbusters reboot looms ever-closer. Shouting matches between Paul Feig apologists and 80s-purists are reaching a fever pitch and accusations of sexism and bar-lowering fly back and forth because it's the internet, and on the internet you can get away with calling people pretty much whatever you want with zero proof.

I'll go on the record and say that I don't think this reboot is a good idea, but when pressed, it's been hard for me to articulate why. Something about it just doesn't sit well with me. Do I hate women? Do I think they're innately less funny than men? Am I secretly one of those guys that the cartoon character Tumblr-ites demonize? I don't think so. I don't want to be. That's not something I'd be proud to be known for. So what is it? If there's no good reason for it to not exist, shouldn't it have the right to exist? After all, it doesn't erase the 1984 classic. That movie has so permeated pop culture that it could never be undone. So what is it? I think I know.

Before we get to the heart of this, there are a few arguments, good and bad, that I've seen people lob around about the new Ghostbusters movie. The first one is that there shouldn't be a reboot because the original movie is “perfect” the way it is.

I guess?

I mean, Ghostbusters is a fantastic movie. One of my favorites. I've been a Ghostbuster for Halloween pretty consistently since college. I've owned toys, video games, comics, DVDs... all of it. I'm a little more than a casual fan. I think it's great. That said, it hasn't aged as well as you might think. And some of that is simply a product of the time and what was expected of movies in the 80s.

I have a cousin who hadn't seen Ghostbusters. They've missed out on a few classics, somehow. This wasn't the first time we've done this, either. They hadn't seen Back to the Future until we sat down and watched the trilogy together. I think that they enjoyed BttF. I never heard otherwise. But their dislike for Ghostbusters was made apparent throughout. The biggest complaint was the Bill Murray/Sigourney Weaver relationship. Watch the movie without those rose-tinted glasses. It's completely shoehorned in. Venkman is horribly obnoxious to Dana through the whole movie. They have zero moments where they actively try to get to know each other and form any kind of bond. Venkman is a creeper who wants to bone Dana, and she sees right through it and rolls her eyes. Sure, it's a classic comedy-romance setup, but it's trite now, and wasn't ever really that believable in the first place. I mean, Bill Murray may be the funniest man on the planet, but he's not great looking. He's no Oscar Isaac. Sigourney wouldn't put up with that. Especially not in her prime. And yet, after Stay Puft's demise, they share a kiss, and presumably go off to make a baby.

Totally not a page from my diary

But it's an 80s comedy. A love interest was expected. And as the lead, Bill was going to get her. Standard movie fare. But to modern audiences, it doesn't hold up. And that's ok. That wasn't what the movie set out to do. When Ghostbusters does sci-fi and comedy, the genres it set out to do, it pulls them off  spectacularly. When it does a secondary genre, it's kind of meh. It's still a great, funny movie. It doesn't have to be a perfect one on all counts. Do I, personally, think the shallow romance is a strike against the movie? Not really.  Nobody dislikes Casablanca because the fight scenes are boring. That's fine. Ghostbusters still stands on its own despite that, and I'd argue that most people who see it for the first time understand or ignore it. The rest of the film is so good that you forgive the things that don't quite work.

My point is, this is an emotional argument. It's nostalgia. It's not a great one to sway people. Just because you grew up with the franchise doesn't mean others did. They don't have the emotional connection to it that you do. They see the cracks in the movie. And that's fine. It has flaws, and seeing those flaws in their context helps those flaws make sense.

The second argument, and the one I found myself making on Twitter, was that the reboot is a cynical cash grab. People have been asking for a third Ghostbusters movie for about 30 years. Something always got in the way. Usually Bill Murray and his hatred of how the second one turned out. He famously hated it because the film had more focus on the special effects than on the character interaction that made the original so great. I don't think he's completely right there, as the second one has great moments, but he made the thing, and there were probably behind the scenes fights about this argument that tarnished his view.

Good thing the new movie doesn't seem to be falling into the same trap. Right?

Hmm...

At any rate, the idea of the Ghostbuster is still in the public consciousness. The brand never went away. People still know who they are. The jumpsuits, the proton pack, the laser gun, etc. People know it. Hollywood knows this. They exploit this. It's what they do. So since the original group can't get together to make a new one (or have died since then, RIP Harold Ramis), they look for someone who will.

Enter the Feig.

Paul Feig stepped up and decided to push forward with his own version. Based on what I've read, it hasn't been a quest for this man to undo the Ghostbusters and replace it with his all-female version because the other one sucked. Based on interviews, he genuinely thinks the original is brilliant, but couldn't rationalize a 30-year gap in the movie canon's timeline. Some of us may say that that's where a “writer” would step in and fill in some gaps, but who knows where Hollywood could find one of those?

So it's a cash grab. Yes. All movies are. We all implicitly know this. It's Hollywood's job to pitch it to us. A “Yeah, we know, but look!” attempt to get asses in seats. Which brings us to the next point I often hear.

Movie trailers can make or break a film. That's the whole reason they exist. I thought the idea for The Peanuts movie was a complete disregard for Charles Schulz's wishes for the franchise to stop after his death. And it kind of was. But when the trailer came out, it swayed me. Schulz's family was involved, the studio knew what they characters meant to the general audience, and they made a pitch to let people know that the Peanuts were in good hands. And it worked. Audiences loved the movie. The studio proved that not everything has to be a cynical cash grab. Sometimes a movie is made from the heart. Made from a place that respects the property and wants to see a property live on and find a home with future generations.

I'd argue that Ghostbusters 2016's trailer didn't do that. To me, a lot of the clever writing and interplay from the 1984 original was gone and replaced with one-liners that didn't work, visual gags that failed, and under-written, flat characters all mugging for focus. The pitch to the built-in fanbase wasn't there. It seems like the studio took those fans for granted and tried to made jokes more catered toward a mass audience, not realizing that A) Those fans like the original because it made the audience bend to the movie, not vice-versa, and B) Ghostbusters was the highest-grossing comedy of all time when it came out (Until Beverly Hills Cop beat it a couple weeks later). That proves that the movie doesn't have to talk down. It just has to be good. The audience is clearly there.

But maybe I'm wrong. Let's look at the trailers.

Even if you think it's good, you have to know there's a major difference in tone there.

So how could this miss the mark by so far? Why do people seem so hell-bent on seeing Ghostbusters 2016 fail?

I think Paul Feig, well-intentioned or not, is completely missing the point of Ghostbusters as a franchise. Sure, everyone knows the car and the packs and the jumpsuits, but that's not why that movie became such a cultural touchstone. Ghostbusters is Ghostbusters because of the Ghostbusters. You can emulate that formula as much as you want, but you're never going to duplicate what made that first movie work.

Ghostbusters was a passion project for Dan Aykroyd. He's obsessed with the supernatural. Ghosts, aliens, everything. And he channeled that obsession and breadth of knowledge into a script that he cared about. Harold Ramis, one of the greatest comedic writers and directors of all time, helped take what was, by all accounts, a mess of a script, and hone it into a brilliant story. Bill Murray, one of the sharpest wits around, ad-libbed much of the way his character interacted with the world around him. The actors informed those characters. Ernie Hudson, Rick Moranis, Annie Potts, etc. all brought important and unique brands of comedy to the table. Bill Murray was right. Ghostbusters is about those characters. Not about that world. The two can't be separated.

Even when Ghostbusters was continued in different media, the people at the helm knew that the characters created for that movie were the glue that held that world together. They were all adapted to cartoons, video games, and recently, a comic book series. The actors and original creators aren't involved, but those characters live on because that world is nothing without them.

When the Extreme Ghostbusters premiered on television, they linked it to the originals by having them in the same world. And people accepted it as part of the canon. That's all it takes.  As long as the old characters are there to welcome the new ones into the fold, people generally accept the new characters with no problem. Just be respectful of the property. Don't wipe away the efforts of the people who did the real work for you.

When people call the reboot unnecessary, dissenters often point to other franchises that are rebooted all the time: James Bond, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Spider-Man. The main difference here is that all of these are adapted works. Sean Connery may have been film's Bond, but he existed as a book before that. Fans lamented the new Turtles movie for sexing up April, but she's just another version of the character who has seen different interpretations in page, cartoon, and previous films. Even Spidey has had three silver screen actors portray him, but he's had countless comic and television incarnations as well (and alternate universes, but now's not the time). The Ghostbusters had no predecessor. This was it. These characters and this world was constructed for the screen.  

Instead, Feig opted for a reboot. Don't let the intro to the 2016 trailer fool you. It implies that the new movie takes place in the same universe as the old one, but every interview (and the structure of the trailer) tells you that it doesn't. He took a world that was molded for a specific group of characters to inhabit, and he's retro-fitting it for his own means. And it just isn't working. Those characters aren't meant for that world. The fact that he's rebooting and cutting all canon ties with the original drives home the idea that he just doesn't grasp what makes this franchise work on a fundamental level. If he had built upon what had been established by the owners of the coattails he's riding, I think fans would have been more accepting of his idea. Even if this group was on the west coast and never had any contact with the originals, just that fact that Feig was bringing back that world would have sat better with fans.

Instead, the new Ghostbusters inhabits a strange plane of existence where it stands on the shoulders of its predecessors, all the while trying to convince you that it got there by its own merit. It's an ouroboros, existing only on the sustainability of the franchise, all the while distancing itself from the very benefits it used to get here. It'll continue to eat itself to hide its shame until it busts wide open.

And Bustin' makes me feel good.

"Frozen," Story Structure, and the Art of Letting Go

We've gotten lucky here in Boston this year. You may remember the Winter-to-End-All-Winters last year, where snowfall broke every record on the books. We all dreaded it happening again. A chill ran down the spines of everyone in the Northeast U.S. as the leaves began to change in September, because we all knew what followed. It seems that the Snow Gods had been appeased, though, because it's now April and we've gotten by pretty unscathed.

Well, I mean, it's snowing as I write this, a few days into April, so that's weird. But it's too little, too late to make up ground at this point. Better luck next year.

Outside of my actual window right now

Something about a nonwhite Christmas, a Christmas of Color, if you will, just didn't seem right this year. I found myself getting nostalgic for the 47 feet of crystallized water we had to navigate last winter. I decided that I had to turn to the only people who would understand my plight. A people who knew the harshness of being buried by an unrelenting freeze, being shut in from their loved ones, and resorting to talking to annoying snowmen to keep their sanity; The people of Arendelle.

Ah, Frozen. The 2013 phenomenon that took every little girl's imagination by storm. I mean, a Disney movie with TWO princesses? How could they resist the allure? Frozen was lauded as Disney's return to form. A revival of the brand. A stepping out from little brother Pixar's shadow. A film that the world's children loved and the world's adults kind of tolerated because they had to. No more would Disney have to sheepishly admit that they had anything to do with Home on the Range, because they had Frozen, dammit. And everyone loved it, and it was the best movie ever, and Disney got all of the money.

Except it's not. Frozen is just not an exceptional movie. It's fine. It's pretty good. But it's full of glaring problems and outright oversights. The writing has no depth at all. Case in point: This movie likes to believe it is deep and metaphorical, but it contains exactly zero metaphors. The theme of love being represented by an open door comes up a lot. What could it refer to? Perhaps exactly that? Perhaps exactly the closed door that Elsa used to separate herself from her sister for years? That's not a metaphor. The closed door can't represent the closed door!

I have a theory that the script was written and submitted, and Disney's board of Money-Makers injected a bunch of ideas into the script that didn't quite mesh, but made it appeal to more kids. I want to be clear that this isn't meant as some kind of "takedown" of Frozen. It's my attempt to see where the story doesn't add up. I think the big problems with the script fall into one of two categories: Plot oversights and inconsistencies, and plot threads that lead to a climax that never occurs. Let's start with the oversights and inconsistencies.

When Anna gets blasted by Elsa's ice for the first time, how does the king know where to go? He just says "I know where to go," and then they ride out into the woods to meet the dumb trolls. How does he know this? Is this a family illness? Has every generation had to go to these trolls to get help at some point? If so, why are Elsa's parents so inept at this? Is there an uncle who could help her develop these powers? Some kind of Ice Gandalf? If this isn't an ongoing problem, how does he know where to bring her at all? Is this an innate skill all royals inherit, like cryomancy? Some kind of Stone Troll radar? It seems very specific. 

Also, why do we need the trolls at all in this movie? From a plot perspective, why are they here? They don't add anything but a forgettable song.

"Because, David," I hear you saying, "They're Kristoff's adopted family!"

Ok, but if we never saw little baby Kristoff, we'd never have to explain that he's an orphan or needs to be adopted. If Kristoff had just wandered into Oaken's shop as Anna was buying supplies, that would be a great introduction. We learn everything we need to know about Kristoff in that scene. He's an ice salesman who is a big, dopey, lovable oaf and he probably fucks his reindeer. There's no reason for him to witness the first scene with the trolls. It doesn't come up again. He doesn't mention it casually to Anna later. We don't even have to see him in Arendelle on Coronation Day because he gets one throwaway line. Kristoff's intro is fine at Oaken's. And why would these trolls bother to adopt this kid at all, if his future job is going to be harvesting ice, anyway? That's the path he was already on. Being adopted by these tumorous annoyances did nothing to improve Kristoff's station in life. Wait, did they even know he was an orphan? Did they steal Kristoff from his family? Hmm...

"Ok, fine," you say. "But without the trolls, Anna would have remembered that Elsa has powers! What about that?"

Well, if you remember, Elsa accidentally beans Anna in the head with the ice. If it's SO IMPORTANT to the plot that she not remember Elsa's magic, have her slip into unconsciousness for a while and have her wake up with no knowledge of it. Bam. Ice powers forgotten, Elsa still becomes a recluse. But even if Anna DID remember, wouldn't Elsa's constant need to push her away be even more dramatic? Wouldn't that make the reunion at the end that much more meaningful? But I digress.

I think baby Kristoff and Sven were inserted into that first scene solely so Disney could cash in on Baby Sven stuffed animals.

Hell, Sven may have been added to the movie only so Anna would have an excuse to have a carrot on-hand to give Olaf a nose when they met. And so that way your kids will want Baby Sven AND Adult Sven stuffed animals! But that may be a little conspiratorial.

There's also Marshmallow, the abominable snow-monster that Elsa creates to get Anna and Kristoff out of her ice castle. Why does she create him? Because she doesn't want to hurt Anna again and needs some muscle to bring her outside. So there's no reason Marshmallow would want to try to kill Anna and Kristoff shortly afterward, going against Elsa's wishes when she created him. It's like they just needed an action scene there.

I can already sense some of you muttering "It's for kids! Who cares?!" Well, please go tell Don Bluth or Roald Dahl or Maurice Sendak that stories for kids don't matter and I will be waiting here with a pack of frozen peas to numb the slaps you get across your face.

Up until now these have been minor complaints. Nitpicks. They make sure that the movie won't ever be as good as Aladdin or The Lion King, or Zootopia, but they don't ruin the movie for me. Suspension of disbelief and all that. But, no. My biggest complaint is that the plot seems to lead in a direction that it either abandons, or was changed at some point in production. This results in plot threads and implications that lead to the wrong climax. Let's go back to that part where Elsa and Anna's parents meet those trolls.

Anna is unconscious. Elsa feels terrible because she hurt her sister. The leader of the trolls sees the injured little Anna and asks if Elsa was "born or cursed" with her powers.

That's a small sentence, but it does a lot of world building. It says that there exist people in Arendelle and beyond that this troll has at least heard of who have had this power before. What's more, they can either be born with it in a completely random manner (as I'm assuming nobody else in their family can shoot icicles around), or be cursed with the ability by someone else. It implies that there are others out there, and by planting it so early in the movie, it suggests something large that'll come into play later. It plants a little nugget of expectation in your head.

Things progress as normal. Nobody wants to Build a Snowman, and before we know it, it's Coronation Day. Anna is excited to see people For the First Time in Forever, and the dreamy Prince Hans shows up and sweeps Anna off her feet. We learn later that Hans plans to have Elsa and Anna killed so he can inherit Arendelle and their booming ice harvesting market, or whatever. Everything is going well for him. Anna is into him, and she's playing directly into his gloved hand.

What a catch!

When he catches Anna at the Coronation Day dance, this is how it happens. Check that out. Look at what's on display here: A gloved hand. That's weird. Why would they show that? Who else would have caught Anna? The Duke of Weselton? It's no surprise when he's revealed.

But who else wears gloves?

Oh, that's right. Everyone but Anna. You got me.

Anyway, from here, Elsa freaks out and loses control of her ice powers, and after the crowd jumps back, we get this single-character reaction shot.

Is he scared? Surprised? Intrigued?

Anna and Hans follow her to the fjord where Hans notices that it's freezing. When the duo double back to Arendelle, snow begins to fall on the kingdom, and it does for the remainder of the movie. Anna assures Hans that she had no idea about Elsa's powers. Once in the courtyard, The Duke accosts Anna as Hans watches, demanding to know "Are you a monster too?"

"Is there sorcery in you, too?!"

And so we get Elsa's power ballad as she Dr. Manhattans an ice palace up in the mountains (Also, how can she create ice through her shoes when gloves were enough to inhibit it? Are her feet more powerful than her hands?) as Anna realizes that Elsa "wore gloves all the time" and that must be how she kept her secret hidden.

My favorite scene from Frozen

After a bit, Anna and Kristoff arrive to tell Elsa that "Arendell's in deep, deep, deep, deep snow," much to Elsa's shock. It's as if she's surprised the kingdom is, well, frozen. She managed to control her powers just fine in isolation up here in the mountains, after all. Have you seen the castle she built? That's some structural integrity. No foundation problems of self-doubt there, no sirree. That's weird. Huh.

From here, Elsa accidentally freezes Anna's heart and Anna runs back to her prince to get her cure. Hans dismisses the help, tells Anna it's all been a ruse, and a very interesting scene occurs.

Hans goes to the window and stares out at the frozen wasteland. In the reflection, his face is superimposed over the snow, suggesting some kind of connection.

He turns back to Anna, monologuing, of course, and removes his glove.

Remember earlier when I asked who else wears gloves, and you said "everyone"? Well, you're right. But only two people are shown having their gloves removed, let alone in a dramatic, story-heavy scene.

Hans slowly walks toward Anna and snuffs out a goddamn candle with his bare hands before dumping water on the fire.

And... nothing happens. Hans was going to marry Anna and have them both killed. End of reveal. It's a GOOD reveal, don't get me wrong, but I believe that everything about Hans sets him up to have the same set of powers as Elsa. The line from the troll leader, the fact that he directs Anna's attention to the freezing fjord that they just happen to be be standing on the bank of, the fact that he's in frame when Weselton interrogates Anna, to the fact that Arendell was completely covered in snow despite Elsa's ignorance, to this whole scene. Every little thing adds up. And the movie just, well, lets it go by without giving it a second thought.

When I saw Frozen for the first time and watched this scene, I thought it was brilliant. Hans has ice powers too?! What a reveal! Everything started to make sense! The uneven approach to Elsa's powers could be glossed over because SHE wasn't the one doing it most of the time! Hans manipulating the people from inside the kingdom to fear and hate the queen was a great power play! But no. Instead, we have a half-assed "well, I guess I know how to control them now" at the end for no real reason. Hans is punched in the mouth, and the nobles applaud, despite the fact that the last time anyone interacted with him, they were all under the assumption that he was behaving under the noblest of intentions.

The sisterly bond and the twist on the act of love are both wonderful ideas and something that really needed to be in a movie, but I just can't get over this buildup to nothing. I can't not see it as either an enormous oversight, or a purposeful rewrite that Disney forgot to erase all traces of. 

Overall, Frozen ends up being just an ok movie. Nothing special, despite the marketing blitz. The songs are pretty solid, for the most part. The way the dialogue is spoken sometimes, you can tell it was clearly written with the intent of being adapted to the stage the whole time, and that's fine. Vertical integration, and all that. And hey, Olaf turned out to be not nearly as annoying as I feared. On the other side of things, I can't help but to feel there was some meddling by the higher-ups going on. Kristoff's adoption still makes no sense and is shoehorned in. The trolls are a cutesy marketing idea that probably came from the fallout of 2010's Despicable Me and their ever-present Minion characters. However, I will argue til the day I die that "conceal, don't feel" is the most on-the-nose, transparent, trite, stupidest piece of dialogue I've ever heard, and this movie is sure to repeat it in part about eight times. If you tried to pass that off in any script workshop, you'd be laughed out of the room.

But Zootopia is great. You should definitely see that.

A Year of Film: Mega-Movie Review

I'm awesome at keeping schedules. Let's get this road on the show.

Ponyo- viewed February 16, 2011.

I've only seen one other Miyazaki film all the way through, and that was "Howl's Moving Castle." I've seen parts of his other movies, and the animation never ceases to astonish. The plot for "Howl," however, was almost nonexistent and meandered for two hours before finally trudging to some end. It was gorgeous, but empty. "Ponyo" was much better. It followed the basic plot of "The Little Mermaid," but stood on its own as a unique movie. However, some things, be they cultural differences or just translation problems, kept the movie from being great for me. We're never given reasons why some things happen. They just happen and are glossed over as either Ponyo's magic or not being a big deal at all. There are a few things that never get any payoff, despite how important they're made out to be (Lisa's talk with Gran Mamare). Dire importance is also given to the fact that Sosuke and Ponyo MUST love each other, but we never find out why. However, from a visual standpoint, this movie is beautiful.

The Social Network- viewed March 1, 2011

"the Social Network," plot-wise, is pretty run of the mill. It has a few surprises, but it seems to be just a movie about something that could be forgotten in a few short years. Most (good) movies say something important that reaches beyond its subject matter, but if, in twenty years, someone remembers "That Facebook movie" as being one of the best films of 2010 I'll be incredibly surprised.
However, what makes this film good is its script. Not in the broad sense. In the "words people say" sense. It completely saves the movie from being about a douchebag nobody cares about and engages the audience with its funny, quick, and smart dialogue. In fact, from Zuckerberg's personal blog to the idea of Facebook, I'd say that this movie is more about writing than it is about the website. At what point does writing lose its power? If the information is there, what does it matter if only a few people read it (like the blog) or if everyone does (like Facebook)? The written word in "The Social Network" goes from an intimate, dangerous, useful thing to a homogenized, filtered, up-to-the-minute ticker that involves no thought and people can choose to skip over if they want to. Much like the rest of this review.

Take Me Home Tonight- viewed March 8, 2011

"Take Me Home Tonight" is the best film of 1987.
Let me explain.
The movie takes place in the late 80s, but also borrows heavily from the John Hughes era of using teenage caricatures to bring light to real human problems.
This movie got slammed by the critics, but if you go in knowing exactly what you're going to get--a goofy-yet-poignant look at post-high school life--you won't be disappointed at all. Director Michael Dowse and the crew borrow Hughes's playbook and hit all the right notes. The movie brings us back to that time where the mundane problems that everyone was going through were also the important ones. They seemed mundane because our whole social sphere had the same problems. Looking back, it's easy to see how those times influenced us, even if they didn't seem so big and scary at the time. The movie has great music, likable actors, and a great bathroom cocaine-and-molestation scene. If you go in expecting a throwback to the 80s and everything to be wrapped up nicely, this movie hits all the right notes.

Slither- viewed March 9, 2011

The well that horror movies were once fetched from has become dried up. That's a fact. When's the last time you saw a movie as great as "The Shining" or "The Exorcist" or "Evil Dead"? Now they all look like the self-parody that the "Child's Play" series has fallen into. Everything is tongue-in-cheek, so it makes it incredibly hard to take things seriously. People don't care about your story if you don't care about it. (Maybe that's why I liked "Take Me Home Tonight" so much, but that review's over).
So that's why I get so excited when I see a horror movie that is worth a damn. "Slither" toes the line between straight-up horror movie and horror movie parody expertly. It does the best job of this since "Evil Dead 2". The scary parts are still scary, the funny parts are hilarious, and both include a creepy deer. While "Scream" was a deconstruction of the slasher film, "Slither" takes all the commonalities in films like "The Thing" and "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" and skewers them in the most loving way possible. They even named the mayor "MacReady." Plus, it's hard not to like Nathan Fillion. I like my humor, and I like my serious stories. Many movies try to mix them unsuccessfully (one of my major problems with the "Pirates of the Carribbean" series. I can't take Davy Jones seriously when he's standing in a bucket of water in a very important scene). "Slither" pulls it off perfectly.

Rango- seen March 19, 2011

Nickelodeon has put out some real shit in the last few years. Like the Disney Channel, (remember when I covered them in that awesome article?) they've gone down the path of recycling their "pretty teenagers who sing" shtick ad nauseum, just in time to graduate your child from that show about teenage idiots to that show about twenty-something idiots on MTV. They're owned by the same company. Check it out.
Anyhoo, "Rango" undoes at least five years of that bullshit. It's a phenomenal movie. The CG is amazing, the music is catchy and fun, the actors are wonderfully cast, and the story, though borrowed, keeps you interested and entertained. In fact, since Pixar only has "Cars 2" coming out this year, I'm perfectly ok with "Rango" taking home the Oscar for best animated feature.
In my review of "True Grit" I complained that westerns weren't really my thing, though I've always loved the setting. "Rango" showed me why. It introduces us to a cast of characters so fun and vibrant and makes their world look so real that at times I forgot that I was watching a cartoon lizard. In fact, I'd argue that "Rango" is a better western than "True Grit." Like many great affectionate parodies (Those of Mel Brooks come to mind), "Rango" absolutely loves what its skewering. In this way it is a lot like "slither." It doesn't feel like a bid for money like all the terrible shows on Nickelodeon (or MTV). It feels like it has real heart. Like they gave a shit. And sometimes that's all it takes.

Paul- viewed March 19, 2011

And then there's "Paul." "Paul" is a strange case where the writers/actors clearly loved what they were parodying, but it just didn't work. While "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz" are both brilliant for what they do to their genres, "Paul" just seemed... phoned-in. Frost and Pegg tried to open up to a "wider audence" which I assume means "add more gay jokes and Seth Rogen." The reason the movie doesn't work is just because everything in it has been done before or seems to be tacked-on. The CIA plotline seems extraneous, which is a strange thing to say, seeing as it is a large part of the movie. All of the jokes fall flat simply because we've seen them before. Compare "Hot Fuzz"'s "This shit just got real" to Paul the alien wanting some Reese's Pieces. Both are from other popular movies. The first is ironic because it's so surreal and ridiculous and we know that Nick Frost's character has been waiting his whole life to say it. When Paul wants Reese's it's just derivative. There's no punchline. It's like a Dane Cook joke delivery.
This movie is really just "Fanboys" with a broader spectrum of jokes. The nerdy guys take a road trip in an RV across the U.S. The pop-culture gags are ok, but we've seen them all a million times before. Early in the movie we learn that our two main characters are UFO aficionados, but instead of taking the pseudoscience/alien conspiracy approach (which would have also been better for Kristen Wiig's character, the best character in the movie), we're given a barrage of pop culture gags. It's nice, but feels tired.
I know this duo has some great movies left in it. "Paul" just seems to be the junior slump.

A Year of Film part 6- Cyrus

Viewed February... 7? Let's go with that.

"Cyrus," starring John C. Reilly and Jonah Hill marketed itself as an oedipal story about a middle-aged man who begins dating a woman with a 20-something year old son (Johan Hill). The son is fiercely protective of the relationship with his mother (The always-stunning Marisa Tomei) and will do anything to stop John (John C. Reilly) from pursuing the relationship.

The movie seems to think that it is telling a unique story about this relationship between the three people, wherein Cyrus begins to get passive-aggressive toward John and tries to sabotage the relationship. Unfortunately, despite the actors' best efforts, this movie doesn't do anything that new. In fact, there was a period of time when I was growing up in the early 90s when movies about new dads and preteen sons who didn't like them were commonplace and filled with people like Jonathan Taylor Thomas and Chevy Chase. In fact, except for the cursing and the sexual references, this movie is just a more adult version of 1995's "Man of the House."

Even the slogans indicate that this is almost the same exact movie. (And just for kicks, the scores on IMDB are Cyrus- 6.6, MotH- 4.4. This is the only time you'll hear me say that JTT got robbed.)

That doesn't really mean it's a bad movie. It's derivative, but it definitely had its moments. However, those moments are also derivative.

The plot of the movie is also both too fast and too slow. John meets Molly and follows her home the next day. It seemed by the third day he was already moving in. That's not hyperbole.
The crux of the movie is the battle for Molly between Cyrus and John, but that battle is such a slow burn that it hardly relevant to the plot, which is more focused on John's need for a relationship and Molly's striving for a balance between her new love and her old life. That is a movie in and of itself and it really doesn't need Cyrus at all to thrive.

The competition for Molly conveniently comes to a head at a wedding and Molly and John go through the requisite break-up-and-mopey-montage phase. Cyrus comes around and reunites the two. The movie is such a by-the-books story that it really puzzles me as to why people thought it was such a shocking film.

Overall, "Cyrus" doesn't prove itself to be anything new and its pacing needed some retooling in the editing department before shooting started. It toed the line between being a drama and a comedy and ended up being weak in both departments.

Seriously, Sundance? Why did this movie get such rave reviews when 15 years ago it was contrived kiddy fare crap? I guess it takes time to grow into contrived adult fare crap.

A Year of Film part 5- Waking Sleeping Beauty

Date viewed: 1/29/11

Imagine you're out in the ocean with nothing around for miles. While out there, sharks swirling beneath you, you come across a life boat. In that life boat are several pages, and those ages tell a great story, but it seems that the wind has picked up the first half and scattered them across the sea, and the writer died of starvation before finishing the book.
These pages are pretty good, but you no context for the story or the characters.

This is "Waking Sleeping Beauty." The documentary tells the story of the Disney animation renaissance between 1989 and 1994 (or, "The Little Mermaid" through the "Lion King" for those of you who know the canon).

It tells about the people in power at that time, Michael Eisner and Jeffrey Katzenberg, and their struggle to bring the Disney animation studio back from the edge of bankruptcy.

The movie does a fair job at this, giving us a brief history of Disney up to that point, but it's ultimately not enough. We never get the real scope of the situation. We have hearsay about the old films and how great they were and that the Disney standard is in the toilet. We have Roy Disney running around managing a company, Eisner beginning his "milk the brand for all it's worth" phase, and Katzenberg being wrong on every call he makes (cut "Part of Your World" from "The Little Mermaid"? "Pocahontas" will be bigger than "The Lion King"? Really?).

To really care about this movie we'd need a full history of Disney and the Nine Old Men who helped found the studio. We need to care about what is going on.

Personally, I think "Waking Sleeping Beauty" would have been more successful as a documentary about the history of animated film with the late 80s/early 90s as the fulcrum of the story. There is too much history before the movie begins and after the movie ends for us to care about the five-year vacuum that the movie showcases. We need to know what happened after the renaissance and what happened to our "characters."

Speaking of which, great documentaries have great characters. Christopher Guest knows this and has made a film career based on exploiting it. Even "King of Kong," which I talked about a few weeks ago, does a fantastic job setting up its characters. We know their history, we know why they do what they do, and we know what they're fighting for.

In "Waking Sleeping Beauty" we get none of this context. We are plopped down into the plot and told to care. In order to get more of the story, Lindsay Ellis's Nostalgia Chick video is almost required viewing.

"Waking Sleeping Beauty" does a decent job of telling us why this period is important in Disney animation history, but it lacks a care factor. There is nobody to cheer for because the documentary never takes the time to really introduce us to any of the people involved. The really interesting stuff happened as a result of the events in this film, so I feel like they should have at least been touched upon. Overall, "Waking Sleeping Beauty" will please those who have a deep knowledge of Disney's history, but leave those who don't wanting more.

A Year of Film part 4- True Grit

Viewed 1/28/11

"True Grit" is one of those movies that people say you have to watch before the Oscars. I don't watch the Oscars, but I did anyway.

And what can I say? A film by the Coen brothers is difficult to talk about for a few reasons including their monolithic film integrity, and the fact that I just don't feel like I'm smart enough to do justice to their movies.

That said, I thought "True Grit" was just an okay movie. There are several reasons for this. The Coen's films usually have a little surprise up their sleeves. They employ an "anyone can die" rule and tend to be the blackest of comedies.

"True Grit" sidestepped a lot of the reguar Coen schticks and made for a much more straightforward, coherent, and accessible film. This is a very easy movie to watch. The characters are exactly who they appear to be, the plot goes more or less how you expect it to go, and all-in-all, it doesn't do much for me as a Coen brothers film.

That's not to say it's not a good movie. It is, but it's only good. Maybe that's the problem. Done by anyone else, this would be just another film. Everything the Coens touch turns to gold, so it's no surprise that this movie has gotten the attention it has even if it's a little unwarranted.

A lot of that attention is for Hailee Steinfeld (not to be confused with a certain comedian with a Superman fetish). She's fantastic in the movie, and unlike, say, Dakota Fanning, I don't want to stomp on her throat until her voice becomes but a gurgle. The girl can act. The cast is also bolstered by the fabulous Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon. The acting in this movie is spot-on and they couldn't have done a better job making the characters seem like real people, if a little goofy.

So why did this movie fail to dazzle me? Maybe itls because I don't really care about westerns. To me, westerns are like vampire movies. I really like them as concepts, but I've yet to see one that has really thrilled me. While this is a fine stand-in for an original Coen movie, it just isn't as interesting or fun as "Fargo,"or "The Big Lebowski," or "No Country for Old Men." But it beats the hell out of "The Ladykillers."

I haven't seen the original, but I watched a matchup or similar scenes in both versions. I'm going to go on record as saying that Jeff Bridges is a hell of a better actor than John Wayne. Like anyone whose persona overshadows their work, all you see is The Duke in an eyepatch. Bridges became Rooster Cogburn.

This is a pretty spineless review. Do I say I didn't like it and risk looking dumb talking about filmmaking geniuses, or do I say "it was a good movie, so go see it"?

Fuck it, I hated "Avatar," I can say what I want. Wait for video for this one.

A Year of Film- Part 3: The Green Hornet

Viewed 1/18/11

What would you call the worst superhero movie ever made? "Daredevil"? "Electra"? The Ang Lee "HULK"? What would you say if a comedian took all the worst aspects of those movies and made them into a separate movie?

"Hey, awesome! This will be hilarious!"

Well, what if they wanted to play it straight? Ladies and gentlemen, I give you "The Green Hornet."
"Green Hornet" is a movie full of "what-if"s. What if Seth Rogen wrote his character to be an affable schlub instead of an unlikeable one? What if the Sidekick-as-real-hero was actually addressed further? What if any character besides the two leads had gotten any characterization at all?
But let's back up.

"The Green Hornet" is based on an old radio show. It was optioned to be a movie years ago and was supposed to be written and directed by Kevin Smith. He did a draft, but then decided to pass on it because he realized he can't write an action movie. I wish Seth Rogen had realized this. I only saw the movie three hours ago, but, save the penultimate car chase, I can't remember any of the action scenes. I remember Rogen's Britt Reid and Jay Chou's Kato bickering, but not much else. That's a shame, because "The Green Hornet" had a lot of great ideas that they never bothered with. I mentioned the superior sidekick thing above, but we also have Christophe Waltz as the "villain" who sees the crime world around him going crazy and has to adopt a supervillain persona to keep up, we have posing as a bad guy idea, which is pretty brilliant. Unfortunately it is only brought up once before the Green Hornet and Kato go out and bust drug dealers in order to send a message to their boss. This is exactly the same thing that anyone posing as a hero would do. What makes them so different?

A much better version of this movie would be something of an affectionate parody along the lines of "Kick Ass." Seth Rogen could be his same old schlub self who wants to make a difference. He's a comic nerd and decides to be a superhero. Being genre savvy doesn't help him much though, as he has no battle training, can't use mechanics well, and is generally a dim bulb. He enlists Kato, who thinks it's a stupid idea, but humors him. Britt realizes that he's not special like Spider-Man and not a genius like Batman, so he goes for a guerrilla approach and decides to infiltrate the criminal underground. A lot of the movie could be him trying to toe the line between keeping Chudnofsky happy by doing what he has to, but also gathering info on a big plan the bad guy has going in order to stop it. Meanwhile, Britt uses his Green Hornet persona to stop the same crimes he's helping set up. The city gets into it, Green Hornet mania sets in and the villains start adopting crazy personas to fight the Green Hornet. They all have terrible names and the movie becomes a parody of superhero films with Chudnofsky as the straight guy, wondering what the hell is going on with the criminals in this city.

Instead we have a film that really doesn't know what it wants to be and generally leaves the audience stupefied. We have Kato, who, for some reason sees in bullet-time with Robocop vision, Cameron Diaz, whose character is completely useless in her I-am-totally-not-Pepper-Potts role, and the unnecessary subplots like the corrupt DA and Britt's father's murder. On top of that, Christophe Waltz is used in 30-second increments throughout the movie, so we never get a notion of what he's doing or why he's really evil. The movie just tries to take on too much at once and never lets us know if it wants to be taken seriously or not.

I think we're supposed to like these characters when they're being funny and worry for them when they're in danger, but the film never lets us see enough of either lifestyle to care. "Iron Man" was successful because Tony Stark is more interesting then Iron Man and the story was about Tony. "The Green Hornet" is like the bizarro-Tony Stark. He's a rich boy charisma vacuum and we just don't care what happens to him.

In fact, this movie is "Tommy Boy" if it was a superhero movie and Chris Farley's character was played by his talentless brother, Kevin Farley.

There really is a Kevin Farley, by the way.

Oscar-winning actors wasted: 1
Useful female characters: 0
Nut shots: 5
Characters who get their alter-ego's name using the same method Robin Williams's character used in "Mrs. Doubtfire": 1


P.S. When the back half of the Black Beauty is chopped off in the elevator, why do they explain that the car can still drive because it has front-wheel drive, but not how it can move without a gas tank?

A Year of Film- Part 2: For Your Consideration

Date watched: 1/6/11

Christopher Guest has made a career in the Mockumentary film "genre" started way back in 1984's "This is Spinal Tap." It seems that this movie, the only one he didn't write, incidentally, gave him the bug of using fictional characters as cartoon characters in the real world. Each of his films is very self-aware and he encourages his cast, usually a combination of Eugene Levy, Parker Posey, Katherine O'Hara, Fred Willard, and himself, to improvise dialogue, making the movie sound more real and conversational--something that helps when you're trying to live in the documentary realm.

Guest's movies that he wrote and directed, "Waiting for Guffman," which brought us the hilarious and flamboyant Corky St. Clair, "Best in Show," where Parker Posey got to turn her crazy knob up to 11, "A Mighty Wind," which starts to wane a bit, but is still very funny, and "For Your Consideration."

"Consideration" is the story of Marilyn Hack (Katherine O'Hara), an aging actress who is trying to cling to her youth. The first thing you'll notice about this movie if you've seen Guest's other films is that it is no longer filmed documentary-style in the traditional sense. Instead, it goes through an "Entertainment Tonight" style TV show starring Fred Willard and Jane Lynch as Chuck and Cindy, the hosts.

Willard and Lynch steal the show as aging hosts trying to stay current with their mohawks and ridiculous outfits. They follow the stars of the made-up film, "Home for Purim," around teasing them with Oscar buzz rumors and jabs about their failing careers. Meanwhile, these hangers-on having nothing to show for their lives except living for the next celebrity gossip or absurd clothing trend. The movie goes the extra mile to demonstrate that while the people with the real talent are often self-absorbed and a little cuckoo, the ones who have made their careers out of tracking them down and humiliating them are pathetic and loathsome.

Marilyn Hack is like Mel Brooks meets Norma Desmond. Her last name says it all, as her performances are laughable and empty, yet she gets caught up in the rumor that an Oscar might be in her future. She wishes to be young again, as many movie stars do, and blows her cash on botox, rendering her emotionless and permanently ruining any chances of an Oscar in her future. This story could be sad without Guest's hilarious writing. Hack eventually ends up an acting teacher whose only sense of fulfillment comes from trying to one-up her pupils.

The other characters, such as Harry Shearer's Victor Allen Miller, Jennifer Coolidge's Whitney Taylor Brown, and Parker Posey's Callie Webb each have their own stories, some shallow, some not, that eviscerate the cult of Hollywood further.

Also, what is it with Parker Posey? She can be really weird looking in some movies, and super cute in this one. Ah, the power of make up.

Ultimately, "For Your Consideration" "documents" a film that has gone bad due to its ineffective writers, idiotic director, selfish actors, and vapid producer. it all culminates in a piece that none of them is really proud of, but all of them were complicit in making.

While the film isn't as funny or entertaining as "Best in Show" or "Waiting for Guffman," it does have a certain charm to it. It stands as a parody of both the Hollywood experience and those pathetic enough to do nothing but pore over "Us Weekly" to see that the stars are "just like them."

A Year of Film- Part 1: King of Kong

I'm going to try to keep myself a little busier this year.
Oh, first of all, happy new year!
Now, I'm going to try to keep myself a little busier this year. I'm going to do more movie reviews. Yeah, I know everyone does movie reviews, but the goal here is to do them a little differently. I'm not sure how yet. I'm just going to dick around and see what happens.
The rules? I'm only doing movies I'm seeing for the first time. That means it could be in theaters, on DVD, on Betamax, whatever. I just have to be seeing it for the first time.

To start off this new-tradition-that-might-get-old-quick, I bring you "King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters," which has to be one the most pun-filled pop culture-y titles of all time. (Date watched: 1/1/11)

In "King of Kong" we get a look into the competitive world of video gaming. And I don't mean bullshit "Black Ops" rounds. I mean the old shit. 8-bit awesomeness.
You see, back before X-Box Live, there was this thing called an "arcade." In these strange buildings there would often be pool tables, pinball machines, and giant video games. Not like those enormous clunkers your grandparents used to put in the NES, but giant games. And people would have to stand to play them. It's amazing people even bothered running electricity into their caves.
Back then, video games didn't really have an ending. The whole point was to accumulate points until you died. After the game over, if your score was high enough, you'd be able to put in your initials--three letters long--on the score board for everyone else to see until the game was unplugged. You may remember an episode of the TV show "Seinfeld" that used this as a plot point. "What's 'Seinfeld,'" you say? Well, I'm afraid that's another story for another day.

At any rate, one of these arcade games was Donkey Kong. You may remember him from things like the video game episode of "Futurama" and what it is "On like."
Donkey Kong was one of these games with a high score. In the 80s, a man named Billy Mitchell grabbed the high score of DK and that record stood until about 2006 when average schlub Steve Wiebe became a part-time dad and made his kid wipe his own ass for a change in order to beat the score.

With any good story you need your protagonist and your antagonist. Documentaries are no different and it easily casts Wiebe as the underdog hero and Mitchell as the Cobra Kai of video games. Legend has it that years ago on the planet Krypton, Jor-El sent his last tie collection to Earth just as Krypton was about to explode. This tie collection made its way to Billy Mitchell and he became a true video game villain. He isn't aggressive, he's passive aggressive. Billy just comes off as a smug asshole who looks like Jesus, which makes his face just that much more punchable. You really don't want to like this guy. Don't believe me? Do a search for him on Google.



Yes, he makes his own hot sauce, too.

The rest of the movie plays out like a "Rocky" film, complete with "You're the Best Around" during a "training montage" in what might be my favorite bit in the movie. Wiebe keeps playing "Donkey Kong" while Mitchell stays in the shadows, be a passive-aggressive douche. It comes down to a pretty great finale which is up there with the likes of "Hoosiers" and "The Mighty Ducks 3."

the documentary may not be fair to Billy Mitchell all the time, but he's just so easy to dislike that you really want to root against him, so I can't fault them on that. As Weibe's family gets invested in his strive for the high score, we do too. If it was just two guys trying to save Pauline, we wouldn't care. The cast of characters around them, from the old prospector-like proprietor of Twin Galaxies to Mitchell's former-nemesis-turned-associate. It's definitely worth a watch for a look at a great video gaming underworld that not even I knew about. And also so you'll dislike Mitchell as much as me.

How I Know "Red Riding Hood" Will Suck Based on the Poster Alone

I don't know if you've seen this little beauty in the cineplex around town. I have, and it enrages me every time I walk by it. Why? What causes this near-embolism every time I glance up at this corporate misstep? Well, I'm glad you asked. Let's break it down.



Our first red flag (heh) is the scrawl at the top: "From the Director of Twilight." Fucking fantastic. Somewhere along the line, legions of teenage girls convinced this woman and the movie studio behind her that she had any talent at all. Well, Miss Hardwicke, you moat creature, they're mistaken. "Twilight" did well because the main character, a vacant slate who is pined after by two young men who would never find interest in someone so boring, comes with the inhuman ability to have the reader's/viewer's wants and needs projected onto her. She is wish-fulfillment. Ask any 38-year-old single mom. Saying your movie is made by the director of Twilight is akin to telling someone your car is built by an American car company. It's technically a car, but that doesn't make it interesting or competently made in the least.

Number two: Believe the legend. One of the earliest versions is the Little Red Riding Hood story was in a book called "Tales of Mother Goose." Call me crazy, but I think appearing in Mother Goose makes you a fairy tale, which is decidedly different from a legend. King Arthur is a fucking legend. Sleepy Hollow is a legend. It's right there in the title! The Brothers Grimm, whom you might remember from FAIRY TALES such as "The Little Mermaid" and "Rumpelstiltskin" said that a legend was a "historically grounded" folktale. When scientists discover the fossil of a wolf wearing pajamas we'll talk. In the meantime, stop calling this a legend. That's like me calling my blog a "peer-reviewed scholarly document."

This brings us to the image itself. we have dreary woods and a bright red cloak. Not only does this bring flashes of stilted, wooden, dreary "Twilight" dialogue, but also the imagery of another fantastic Hollywood triumph, "the Village," by M. Night Shyamalan. Is that fair? The "Riding Hood" story has been around forever, with its roots in "The Bible and other fantastic stories,"* so Shyamalan could have taken cues from that and transplanted them into his story. That way it's just two different auteurs drawing from the same inspiration, right? Well, I don't want to give either of these terrible directors the benefit of the doubt, so Shyamalan is stealing and Treebeard up there is just unoriginal.

Now we have the logo, presented in the same stunning way as the title to "300." Blood spatters; is there anything they can't artificially hype up?

That was a quick point, wasn't it?

And at last, we have "Who's afraid?" That's not a bad tagline. It teases the audience with the appearance of the Big Bad Wolf (who is probably a glistening werewolf in this adaptation) and the adventure that will ensue. "Who's afraid of the Big Bad Wolf," indeed. Tra la la la la.

Wait. That's not from the Riding Hood story. That's from the Three Little Pigs. No, not the character of the Wolf, but that line. That lyric that is supposed to be the clincher for the whole film is stolen from a song featured in a 1933 Disney cartoon! They can't even keep their source material straight.



I don't know about you all, but I'll be in line to see this movie come March so I can make wolf shadow puppets on the screen. I like to bring a little realism to the movies.

* Not true. I just wanted to take an easy swipe at the Bible.

I love the Disney Channel.

Believe it or not, there was once a time in American pop culture when Disney was the gold standard for a brand. They put out high quality programming, movies, products, and even had a theme park that didn't require you to sell your children to sweat shops to visit. But, as we all know, when you're at the top there's only one place to go, and it ain't a plateau.
In the Disney Channel's infancy it was actually a pay channel like HBO or Showtime. Unfortunately this required them to use effort or people would stop paying for them. It ran shows like "Under the Umbrella Tree" and "Dumbo's Circus" and Mickey Mouse even taught you how to do aerobics.

(Mousercise pics from http://www.platypuscomix.net/history/exercise.html)

Yeah. You're seeing that correctly. That's someone dressed as Donald Duck standing in close proximity to a woman (who is not a young Rue McClanahan) who is wearing leg warmers. And I'm assuming he knows he's in front of a camera. Can you imagine the preparation he must have to put himself through every morning to go to work? Not stretching, but convincing himself that life is still worth living? Plus, I can't imagine Donald wouldn't have a visible erection wearing no pants and being around that many women in tights. Why is he dressed like a sailor even when he's doing warm-ups?

(Not the same person)

At any rate, at some point Disney decided that this was not a quick enough way to bring down western civilization and they became a basic cable channel, bringing you such quality programming as "Hannah Montana" "That's So Raven!" and "The Jonas Brothers Fellate the Neighbors."

This is the Disney Channel you are familiar with. The Disney Channel that has since poisoned every industry from music to TV to clothing to movies to cooking (probably). The Disney Channel that I love.

That's right. I fucking love it. Why, you might ask? Because of a simple theory I have that has thus far proven to be true. Disney gets genetically perfect kids, exploits them for all they're worth, and kicks them to the curb once puberty sets in. Sound about right? Well, let's explore why it's so fantastic together.

Step 1: You're hired!... As a bit player of a currently hot show.

Disney likes to test the waters. Sure, your fourteen-year-old genes might make people born with flippers for arms wish they had a third of your looks. Sure, you may have broken up a neighbor's marriage because the bored husband was taking pictures of you through the curtains, but are you talentless yet pretty enough to carry your own show? Disney will shoehorn you into the background of a currently running TV show to see how well you can follow directions and appeal to the market before the next Demi Lovato becomes the next Hilary Duff. If you're vaguely ethnic, even better. Vaguely ethnic pretty young people appeal to young ethnic kids who are looking for role models and young white kids who want to frustrate their parents.

(I can't believe you got your own franchise either.)

Step 2: Your very own show!

Congratulations! Disney was probably convinced you deserve your own show because you're thin and pretty and can kind of sing! Good for you! Are you ready to churn out CDs to children whose parents will soon lose their minds by listening to your interpretation of "Let's Get Together" over and over again? Hooray! Let's give you a name that sounds kind of like yours and put you in a familiar location and make it completely wacky. Like in middle school, but you're secretly an international rock star! Or in middle school, but you're a witch! Or in middle school, but you can see the future! That's so interesting! That's so awesome! That's so Raven! Now, we're only going to make three seasons of your show. During those three seasons there will be no character development at all. Everyone must stay the way there are and have one character trait. We don't know how to develop people with more traits than that. Characters who we write as your best friends may not have the appeal we need, so we might fire them in the middle of a season, so continuity is a big no-no. Finally, we're only going to give you three seasons because after that our studies show that you n longer have that innocent look and parents will be looking for the next thing to keep their kids sheltered. But don't worry, we'll have a huge theatrical movie that will cap off the series, although almost every secondary character will be missing and it'll be focused on you and a far-off location and a love interest. But you'll get to sing all the music for the soundtrack and this will launch your music career, which we'll manage.

Step 3: Life A.D. (After Disney)

Now that you're too old for TV appeal, we'll keep churning out your CDs until the next thing on the Disney Channel usurps you. That'll be good for about six months. Meanwhile we'll rerun your show for the next five years, gaining any cash from residual marketing and interest. You may feel that you're getting a bit too old for Disney now. Instead of letting you live in obscurity with the money you don't deserve, we're going to keep whoring you out like the cash cow you are. You'll be 26 and still playing a 15 year old, but we won't tell anyone.
You may also be noticing things about your persona now. You're barely 18 now and the media is starting to sexualize you. That tends to happen when genetically perfect children grow up and blossom. You're a hottie. But don't let anyone know. Your nightclub antics are starting to catch up with you. All that cocaine might be good for your figure, but parents tend to frown on that kind of thing. That's fine, but expect us to distance ourselves from you as soon as this happens. If you're still making money for us in "High School Musical 7: The Community College Years," we'll put out a statement of support and let you off with a warning. Next time you're on your own.


4. Ok, ok we get it.

You want to move on. You don't want to be perceived as another kiddie Disney princess, so you'll be looking for breakout roles outside the company. Your career with us has come to a halt. You're tried to explore other things, but they're just not successful. It's almost as if you never had the talent we told you you had. Like all you had going for you was marketability and good looks. Like the only reason you're still relevant is because men just wanted you to turn 18 so they could jerk off without the tinge of guilt. But fine, get out of here. Don't try to come back. But somehow, despite your lack of talent and range, you really want some work that will make people take you as a serious actress and not just someone who could do a double take in a school gym.


5. You're an adult.

So, doesn't it feel good to be away from Disney? What a bunch of assholes. But hey, you're pretty and talented. You're signed with us now. You have this drive to be considered a serious actress even though you don't have the chops for it. And you're desperate to stand apart from that cute role that got you famous. What would be the logical ting for a pretty young girl who wants to be seen as an adult and has been lusted after for years?