The Hurt Locker

PASSING THOUGHTS
Ironically enough, I’ve found that when you put the word “super” in front of the word “hero”, it actually drains the character of all its power and impact.

When I see movies like “Iron Man”, “Spiderman” or “Superman”, I am entertained and dazzled by the spectacle. I’ve always enjoyed comic books and cartoons that revolve around superheroes, and the recent outpouring of comic-based films has been (for the most part) a welcome trend. However, after watching “Hurt Locker”, I realize just how empty those heroes now seem to me.

The essence of a hero boils down to courage, selflessness, and sacrifice. Superheroes have those qualities, but they are lost behind the glamour, wealth, gadgets or powers that make them “super”. As a child I was inspired by superheroes because of the fantastical elements involved, but now that I see the world through the eyes of experience and disillusionment, I crave heroes I can relate to. Aside from the occasional daydreams of having superpowers to punish the jerk who cuts me off on the freeway, or to dazzle the gal that just isn’t impressed with DVD reviews, I don’t want to emulate a superhero anymore. Superheroes exist to excite the mind and trigger the imagination. They perform truly heroic acts, but when placed in the context of reality, those acts ring hollow and create a cynicism about the existence of real heroes.

“Hurt Locker” restored my faith in true heroism.

The film is not a documentary, but it was shot in a style that replicates the authentic feel of raw genuine footage. The effect is an illusion that you are watching real people do real things in real danger, and so acts of courage and selflessness have the ability to strike a chord. The characters aren’t flawless, they aren’t saints, but they are people putting their lives on the line to save the lives of others. I felt admiration for the work they did, for their toughness and ability to cope with fear. They weren’t without fear—they just didn’t let it stop them from doing what needed to be done. They were very human, very relatable, and the fact that there are actually men and women doing exactly what the characters were doing made their actions resonate in a powerful way.

The film shows the soldier’s vulnerabilities and mistakes, and it does nothing to glorify their jobs or their fight. But in doing nothing more than trying to capture reality, the film is able to reveal the heart of heroism that exists in the real world as we know it, and there are no superpowers, special effects, or motley costumes to obscure the view.

BASICS

Your Cup O’ Tea:
If you’re a fan of more documentary-type filmmaking, you enjoy character-driven plots, you’re looking for realistic portrayals of war or you’d rather be immersed than entertained.

Steer Clear:
If you want a fast-paced thrill-ride or a typical war film. There is violence but it’s few and far between, no shoot-out scenes or even palpable villains. This isn’t good versus evil with an underlying plot and resolution at the end. It’s episodic, and there is a lot of downtime.

Nothing New Under the Sun:
This is going to fit in more with a war documentary than with any other Hollywood-type film out there. It’s rather unique, since it has the feel of realism without having any footage of authentic scenarios or battles. It has the pacing of a sniper film, like “Enemy at the Gates” without the love triangle and definitive villain, but it’s hard to find another flick out there that has done what this film has done.

Buy or Rent:
Rent. You can get through the special features in less than forty minutes, and this is definitely an experiential piece. You watch it, you appreciate it, but most likely there won’t be anything to draw you back. It’s worth a viewing, but you most likely won’t find it entertaining in a way that would make you want to see it again.

FEATURES

-Scene Selection

-Language Selection

-Feature Commentary with director Kathryn Bigelow and writer Mark Boal

-The Hurt Locker: Behind the Scenes
Approx 12 minutes. A very typical behind-the-scenes feature that does little more than tell you what you’ve seen in the film. Almost a third of the running time is occupied by clips from the movie with very little “behind-the-scenes” footage mixed in. If you want a summary of the movie without watching it, this section is useful. But if you’ve seen the film, this is going to be little more than redundant.
DUH! Factor (On a scale of 1 to 10—10 being “very obvious” and 1 being “interesting”): 10

-Image Gallery (with or without Q&A Recorded at the Institute of Contemporary Art, London)
Approx 23 minutes. This is a collection of feature and production stills from the film. They are pretty small and low-res, so they don’t really garner that much interest. You can view them as a slideshow with a director/writer Q&A session providing the soundtrack, which redeems this feature to a degree. Bigelow and Boal talk about everything from the musical score to casting, to distribution, and elaborate on their movie-making philosophy and strategy. Again, it’s a lot of telling you what you’ve already seen, but there are some nuggets of interest if you care about the filmmaking process. Content is discussed, but not to any great depth.
DUH! Factor: 7

Woulda Been Nice: To have a day-in-the-life-of-an-actor-on-set segment. There’s a wee bit of footage and some stills showing the actors on set that piqued my interest as to what it was like to film in Jordan. And it would have been fascinating to see interviews with the native extras to see what they thought of the filming and their take on the experience of working with American filmmakers.

Walk Hard

PASSING THOUGHTS
I think this is the first time that a movie has been upstaged by a penis. With two brief cameos, the male genitalia created the only lasting impression I have of this film. Granted, there was plenty of nudity from both sexes during the scene, but for some reason the phallic shots were particularly obtrusive. It wasn’t like I was in a locker room with a bunch of naked guys milling about on their way to and from the shower. It was like I was kneeling down to tie my shoe and a naked man turned around and just stood in front of me for no reason.

What’s worse is that I had the distinct feeling that for some reason this man thought himself terribly funny for doing so.

Apparently the filmmakers weren’t content with their ceaseless exploitation of the word “Cox” and decided we needed a visual as well. To each his own, I suppose.

That bit of tomfoolery aside, “Walk Hard” proved to be an interesting exploration of parody. I have never seen “Walk the Line”, but after watching this spoof I think I can piece most of the plot together. Usually parodies will simply tap into familiar imagery from other movies and pick on nuances of the genre. The stories are a series of disjointed scenes that exist only to provide the set-up for a joke. The “Scary Movie” series is a good example of this. While the films are able to mock many different titles, they do so at the cost of a coherent plot. “Walk Hard” adheres to its source material all the way through the film, allowing it to accurately borrow the plot and use it to drive the action forward.

It’s the difference between merely speaking the lyrics of a song parody and actually singing them with the original music. Speaking the lyrics can be humorous in much the same way a stand-up routine can be humorous. If the lines are funny by themselves, they’ll get laughs regardless of whether they are placed in the context of a song. The benefit to this is that the audience doesn’t need to know the source material the song is mocking because the humor stands alone. The downside is that the true essence of parody is missed and there’s nothing to carry the material towards a conclusion.

Singing the spoof lyrics with the original music puts the jokes in context and highlights the genius and insight of the writers; the production value and familiarity of the original song helps to sustain interest and underscore the punch-lines. It’s an added bonus if the satirical lyrics actually mock the subject of the original song instead of going off on their own tangent. The only drawback to this is that the audience needs to know the source material to really appreciate what is being done to it.

“Walk Hard” is definitely a parody that sings the lyrics with the original music, so after the first few minutes I figured I wouldn’t get the humor because I’d never seen “Walk the Line”. However, most of the jokes are so overt and specific that I began to see the original story (and its apparent flaws) beneath them. This created a three-step process in which I recognized the joke, inferred what the original movie must have been like based on that joke, and then examined the joke again in light of my inference.

On the whole, this movie didn’t come off as terribly humorous. I don’t know whether to blame the rigors of my extensive examination or the quality of the jokes, but somehow the mark was missed. There were crass moments aplenty and no shortage of sexual innuendos, but there was very little in the way of brilliant comedy. The songs and scenes were performed with the utmost integrity, which is crucial in pulling off a spoof, but they still came up lacking the necessary punch.

To be on the safe side, make sure you’ve seen “Walk the Line” before taking a gander at this film, and have your finger poised over the FF button at the 29 minute mark. (Or just skip Chapter 9 altogether.)

BASICS

Your Cup O’ Tea:
If you gravitate towards physical and sex-related comedy that has a tendency to go over-the-top, or if you enjoy movies that straddle the line between “edgy” and “poor taste”.

Steer Clear:
If you prefer understated or relatively clean humor, you’re looking for a family comedy, or you haven’t seen “Walk the Line” yet.

Nothing New Under the Sun:
As a parody of “Walk the Line”, the plot and events are very similar. John C. Reilly running around in his abbreviated wardrobe is reminiscent of almost every Will Ferrell movie, and the humorous quality is very much akin to “Talladega Nights”, “Half Baked”, and “Good Luck Chuck”. The parody style is closer to something like “Spaceballs” than it is to “Scary Movie”.

Buy or Rent:
BUY. If this sort of thing is your cup o’ tea, you’ll enjoy revisiting it from time to time. The production values are rather good, which means the moments are well-done—and there are many of them. If you aren’t a big fan of movies like this, you’d probably be advised to skip a rental.

FEATURES

-Languages

-Scene Selection

-Previews (12 total)

-Commentary with Jake Kasdan, Judd Apatow, John C. Reilly and Lew Morton

-Full Song Performances
8 total. These are the songs from the movie performed in their entirety as extended scenes. (Walk Hard, A Life Without You, Guilty as Charged, Dear Mr. President, Royal Jelly, Starman, You Make Me So (Hard), Walk Hard—All Star Band.)

-Deleted and Extended Scenes
4 scenes, approx 11 minutes. The first scene adds a minute to the beginning of the drug deal scene, the second scene is another version of Dewey’s rehab, the third scene is an extension to the Beatles interaction, and the final scene is an alternate acid trip done with live action and FX instead of animation.

-Line-O-Rama
Approx 6 minutes. A series of ad-libs that weren’t used in the film. These are not outtakes or goofs, but rather improv lines from the actors during the course of shooting.

-The Music of “Walk Hard”
Approx 16.5 minutes. A featurette that explores how each song in the movie was conceived, developed and performed. It features a lot of behind-the-scenes footage as well as interviews with the songwriters, composers and the director. John C. Reilly is in most of the shots as he did the actual singing and guitar playing for most of the songs.
DUH! FACTOR: 3 out of 10

-The Real Dewey Cox
Approx 14 minutes. This is a spoof of the featurettes done about real people. Just as the film itself faithfully mimics the source material, this faux biography imitates the mood and material found in a documentary. It is, for all intents and purposes, a mocumentary. Features interviews with John C. Reilly, Jackson Browne, Lyle Lovett, John Meyer, Sheryl Crow, Sarah Evans, and Jewel, among others.

Would Been Nice: If the filmmakers would have chosen to take the higher route regarding their brand of comedy. Obviously you can’t please everyone, but there were brief moments of potential mixed with the innuendos and lewdness.

What Happens In Vegas

PASSING THOUGHTS
This movie reminded me of an Improv game where players are given random sentences that they have to work into a dictated situation. The end result tends to be amusing, but it’s also understandably contrived and usually somewhat awkward.

Every plot has certain points that need to be hit to move the story along and allow the characters to show some kind of growth. Ideally these points are submerged inside the story, disguised as dialogue and events that happen naturally based on circumstances. For the most part, “Vegas” doesn’t achieve any kind of subtlety when it comes to said plot points. The reasons for certain lines and situations become all-too-apparent the instant they develop, which makes this love story seem more forced than most. Instead of the movie being like a real person with muscles and sinews working together to create fluid movement, “Vegas” was more like a skeleton that had the necessary pieces in place but had nothing to animate them.

The main reason for the overt contrivances seems to be a noble attempt to give the movie a depth and a heart that it shouldn’t have had. When a movie premise is a gimmick or a bizarre circumstance, the film can go two ways: it can either take the uniqueness seriously and use it as a creative way to expose something equally unique about life, or it can use the gimmick to set the stage for a series of increasingly ridiculous and implausible events that, if done well, allow hilarity to ensue before injecting a touch of sentimentality at the end. Films like “Bruce Almighty”, “Notting Hill” and “Stranger than Fiction” take the former approach, allowing what comedy there is come about as a natural byproduct of the situation, whereas films like “Liar Liar” and “Rat Race” are essentially designed to be a string of laughs.

“Vegas” was designed to be a laughter platform but tried to take itself seriously at certain points; naturally those points stuck out like sore thumbs and robbed the film of its comedic flow.

On the plus side, the film was far less crass than it might have been. For the most part it avoided truly low-brow antics and didn’t turn to rampant nudity, graphic sex, or gratuitous substance abuse to illicit laughs. There were some good lines and reactions throughout, and while the characters were mostly caricatures, they weren’t obnoxious or annoying.

BASICS

Your Cup O’ Tea:
If you want a casual romp that revolves around pranks and one-upmanship and doesn’t require any emotional attachment, or if you enjoy Ashton Kutcher movies in general.

Steer Clear:
If you’re looking for traditional romance, you enjoy the gradual progression of love into a relationship, or you’re seeking smart comedy.

Nothing New Under the Sun:
While no particular movie comes to mind as a precedent for this one, it does focus on a typical antagonistic relationship—albeit one that’s more exaggerated than most. If you’re familiar with the sitcom “Frasier”, think of Ross and Bulldog. In some ways it feels like a less mature, less intelligent version of “27 Dresses”, where both parties are constantly at odds with each other.

Buy or Rent:
RENT. No special features, no draw for a repeat viewing. Obviously if you found the shenanigans funny you’ll enjoy watching it again and again, but for the most part you can glean all there is to glean from one pass.

FEATURES

-Languages

-Scenes

-Trailers
“Deal”, “Charlie Bartlett”, “Marley and Me”—Teaser

Woulda Been Nice: Once again I’ll revert to the gag reel—outtakes for comedies are always nice. Not much else to look for in terms of bonus features; it’s pretty cut and dry.

The Ugly Truth

PASSING THOUGHTS
Romantic comedies typically require a measure of suspended disbelief. Even the most believable premises involve coincidences, out-of-the-ordinary circumstances, and internal changes that occur at the speed of montage. Trouble can arise when the level of suspension begins to rival that of a sci-fi or horror flick, and unfortunately it requires the same imagination for me to buy into the characters and theme of this movie as it does for me to accept the existence of Ewoks, elves, and zombies.

First of all, the leads are caricatures who represent opposite extremes of the relational spectrum. This isn’t a problem in itself, but when the world begins to morph and twist around them, essentially adjusting to their extremities, the effect is jarring. Instead of placing the hypothesis of the theme in front of a realistic backdrop for speculation and comparison, the film applies the hypothesis to the world which takes it out of reality. Instead of lust and love being two different things, they are merged into one. Lust and its effects are typically frowned on by society, but here it is given the same respect and approval that love is. Whatever planet this film is set in, it isn’t Earth.

If the film had been able to successfully blur the difference between love and lust, this premise might still have worked. But there are numerous plot holes and character contradictions that make the fantasy all the more unbelievable. First, Mike says that he doesn’t believe in a healthy relationship, to his “very core”, citing a list of bad experiences as proof. Then, naught but one dance later, his core has undergone a complete transformation, and he believes in love and is willing to pursue what he must consider to be a healthy relationship. Next, after having fled from what we are to believe is love, Mike tells his new producer, “You know what I like best about you? I don’t want to have sex with you”. He didn’t say, “I’m not in love with you”, he made an overt reference to lust.

A third gaping discrepancy in the plot is the falling out between Abby and Colin. The entire movie we are led to believe that Abby has fallen in love with Colin; he has everything she wants, and he’s a great guy to boot (except of course for the horrendous fact that he orders bottled water instead of tap water). Yet in the end when Abby confesses that she is nothing like the woman she has presented to him, it somehow drives away her love for him. If she loved him before, revealing herself to be a liar shouldn’t change that. In fact, Colin should be the one rejecting her. But in this strange new world, Colin ends up getting the shaft because the girl he fell in love with stopped loving him when she exposed herself as a fake. I believe that’s a first in cinema history.

This perversion of reality is made most evident by one of Heigl’s comments in the special features. In reference to the two leads, she says, “It works because they bring out the best in one another…” But by her character’s own admission, Mike didn’t bring out the best in her. He brought out a false her that could tune into a man’s lust and manipulate him into developing feelings for her.

This film tried to be a modern day When Harry Met Sally—it even had an orgasm-in-the-restaurant scene (though this one was real). But while WHMS shows the evolution of friendship to love and presents a somewhat coherent presentation about the differences between men and women, TUT tries to mix lust and love and proclaim it to be a universal truth. But thanks to the fabrication of a fantasy world filled with unbelievable characters, the “truth” is revealed to be what it really is. A lie.

But to be fair, it is an ugly lie.

BASICS

Your Cup O’ Tea:
If you aren’t looking for a lovey-dovey romance, and want more physical and bizarre comedy, this is up your alley; think Something About Mary. Even comedies tend to have a serious streak, but this film doesn’t tap into that. This is an antagonistic love story where the leads know each other from the get-go but don’t get along at all. There’s plenty of clashing and jousting, and it won’t require a lot of thought to follow. If you want a chic flick that minimizes the “chic”, this is your pick.

Steer Clear:
If you’re looking for a family-oriented comedy. This is rated R for a very good reason: lots of overt sexual language, references and profanity. There’s very little nudity (male backside, censored female front), but this is definitely an adult film. This is almost what American Pie would be like if it got older; the romance and relational development are minimized in exchange for physical comedy.

Nothing New Under the Sun:
This has the social commentary feel of a crass "When Harry Met Sally", and the protagonist angle of a raunchy "Hitch". And with very few deviations, the characters and interactions are very much reminiscent of Someone Like You, and, to a degree, "27Dresses".

Buy or Rent:
RENT. Unless you found the physical comedy to be funny enough for multiple viewings, there won’t be much to justify making this a purchase. You can tackle most of the bonus features in less than an hour, and the story is pretty straight-forward. The dialogue is more of a commentary and doesn’t necessarily make for an entertaining exchange. The performances are good enough, so if you’re a fan of Heigl or Butler this may be something you’d add to your collection. Other than that, one viewing should be enough. Of course, if you want a healthy collection of previews (this baby has a baker’s dozen of ‘em) this is a must-buy.

FEATURES

-Scene Selection

-Language Selection

-Select Scenes Commentary with Director Robert Luketic and Producer Gary Lucchesi:
10 scenes total.

-Deleted Scenes:
Approx 10 minutes of new footage. There are six scenes total, most of which are continuations of existing scenes. There are two scenes which deal with the introduction and creation of Mike’s agent, but the rest seem to extend the through-lines of the scenes they were cut from. The final scene is interesting in that it shows you what montage footage looks like without the music behind it. …Which in turn shows you how important music is to making a montage work! (The footage in these scenes is cut and polished for the most part, so the quality is the same as the feature footage.)

-Alternate Endings:
Approx 5 minutes. There are two alternate endings. The first is simply a role reversal of the very last scene in the theatrical version. The second is an extended Return of the King-esq ending where we get lots of reactions shots from the other characters, and we see what appears to be the outdoor reception of a wedding between our two lovebirds. Most of this segment consists of a dance sequence without the music.

-Gag Reel:
Approx 10 minutes. There is a lot of footage here, but only about 5% of it is what you would consider bloopers or outtakes. Most of what you’ll see are ad-libs and alternate or extended lines. Nothing that really makes you think, “I wish that was in the movie”, just a display of some of the creativity on set. Not much to laugh at, but definitely one of the longest “gag reels” I’ve seen.

-The Truth Is Ugly: Capturing the Male and Female Point of View:
Approx 12.5 minutes. This is pretty much a segment where the producer, director, screenwriters and major cast members explain the theology behind the movie in their own words. This isn’t about the movie per se, but it sheds further light on the perspectives and overall theme of the story. It’s not redundant, but if you’ve watched the film, you pretty much get the idea.
DUH! FACTOR: 8 out of 10

-The Art of Laughter: A Making of Hilarious Proportions:
Approx 16 minutes. This is the part where the actors talk about how great the director was to work with, the director talks about the cast, and the producers and screenwriters chime in with their praise for the project in general. There is some time taken to discuss Georgia and Larry’s (played by Cheryl Hines and John Michael Higgins) exchange and contribution to the film, but other than that, this segment is pretty much praise over behind-the-scenes footage. No real eye-openers here, but if you want to hear how the muscle-bound hero of 300 came to be a romantic lead, you might find this interesting.
DUH! FACTOR: 7 out of 10

-Previews:
Did You Hear About the Morgans?, Angels and Demons, Julie and Julia, Blu-Ray Disc Ad, 2012, The Accidental Husband, It Might Get Loud, St. Trinian’s, The Maiden Heist, Assassination of a High School President, Coco Before Chanel, Whatever Works, Fireflies in the Garden, The Nora Roberts Collection.

Woulda Been Nice: To have more “truth” and less “ugly”.

There Will Be Blood

PASSING THOUGHTS
Time is precious. Time is a fixed commodity for all of us; once it’s gone there is no way to earn, borrow, barter, steal, or in any other earthly way obtain more of it. It is for this reason that I find myself remorsefully bitter when two hours and thirty-five minutes of my time is utterly wasted by a piece of nonsensical tripe so far removed from the human experience that it is not merely irrelevant, it is perverse.

This story—no. I cannot even call this a story. It is a nightmare. It is a nightmare because there is enough imagery to mimic reality, but nothing that happens makes any sense within the context of reality. There are human forms, but they do not act human. There is speech, but it makes no sense. The whole film is a vague shadow that uses familiar elements to create a completely foreign world that cannot be understood or reasoned with. Violence without explanation and unhinged dialogue are accentuated by music that seems to be composed for the sole purpose of adding to the cacophony.

The nightmare is comprised of pure lunacy. Not greed, not faith, not hate, but utter madness. A few of the peripheral characters are not infected with this madness, but the rest are relentlessly driven forward by it. The first indication of trouble starts with Paul Sunday’s question game with Daniel. Every question is answered in kind by another question, sometimes one that has no relationship to the train of thought. Paul seems very unnatural, very strange—traits that apparently run in the family. His twin brother, Eli, also likes to play the question game and shares his brother’s propensity for playing hardball. Eli comes across as abnormal from the moment he is introduced. He speaks and reacts with an eerie detachment that makes him seem psychotic. I was waiting for his head to spin around or for him to start levitating. His authority over his family is unsettling, as is the fact that he is supposed to be the pastor of a church. His behavior is erratic and frankly unbelievable once it becomes clear there is no catch. He’s not possessed, he’s not an alien and he’s not a manifest spirit. He acts like he could be any of those things, yet we are to believe he’s just a man of faith trying to get his church up and running. The scene where he jumps on the table and starts beating his father clinched it for me. I thought for sure he was an imposter pretending to be part of the family; some kind of psycho swindler who’s plan was foiled by Daniel. What son attacks his father like that? What mother allows it? What father just sits there and takes verbal abuse? Was the film simply trying to display the hypocrisy of religion? If so, it shouldn’t have used an overtly deranged boy as a representative of faith, particularly when faith never makes so much as a cameo. There’s a twisted version of salvation involved, but it is treated with even less integrity than the man who presents it.

Daniel seems somewhat normal at the outset, but it soon becomes clear that he is not in his right mind either. Apart from a brief monologue about his desire to compete and prevail, there is absolutely no indication that greed drives him. His actions are incomprehensible because there is no motivation for them. He publicly beats Eli in a random act of violence, and he fondles his future daughter-in-law. After stating that he just wants to make enough money so that he can get away from the people he hates so much, he turns down a huge sum of money saying he wouldn’t know what to do with his time. When a man suggests that Daniel could spend the free time with H.W., Daniel flies off into another tantrum that culminates with him threatening to cut the man’s throat while he sleeps. It’s clear by every man’s reaction at the table that they think Daniel has lost his mind, and at that point I completely agree with them.

When Daniel finds out that Henry lied to him about being his brother, he kills him. Henry was not a competitor, he wasn’t a threat. He was a liar, but nothing more. Then Eli, in desperate need of money, visits Daniel in his house where Daniel bludgeons him to death with a bowling pin. Eli posed no threat to Daniel in any shape or form. He also was not a competitor, but Daniel saw fit to take his life anyway. These are definitive moments for Daniel’s character, and somehow they are chalked up to greed.

Greed? How can any of these bizarre actions be in any way associated with greed? The only possible murder Daniel could have committed out of greed would have been to kill H.W. because his faux son could have possibly become a viable competitor. But Daniel doesn’t kill him. Instead, he opts to reveal the truth about their relationship with inexplicable venom and animosity. I expected to see him start foaming at the mouth during this speech, as he comes across as little more than a rabid dog.

After an hour and a half, I was done with this movie. It seemed to be nothing more than a series of on-the-job accidents and slap fights held together by two complete loons doing strange things that could not be explained by any normal human condition. I watched it until the end, hoping for a revelation or some kind of twist that would justify the perpetual disconnect these characters have with reality.

I hoped in vain.

I eventually caved and went online to see if I could glean something from a synopsis, and I was horrified to discover that this cinematic debacle was actually praised by critics. Apparently it even won two Oscars. I cannot fathom what state of delirium the advocates of this movie must have been in to see it as anything more than a tragic waste of silver, but then I cannot understand how a human mind could spawn such nonsense in the first place.

As for the nuts and bolts of the film, it had some great acting, great cinematography, a fantastic wardrobe and some believable sets. Very high production values. The score, however, sounded like a musical version of Tourette’s. It never fit the mood or tempo of the scenes, and oftentimes it proved to be a distraction. Sometimes it was downright repetitive and annoying. I would say that it didn’t relate to the film at all, but its complete lack of cohesion fit very well with the “plot”.

The so-called themes of this movie never show up. Greed may have a presence, but it doesn’t come through in the action. Family exists, but it has no form or effect. Faith is never seen as a viable virtue. The only theme this movie presents is one of oppressive insanity. No reason, no logic, no rationale…just a series of actions and reactions that comes to a merciful and abrupt end.

BASICS

Your Cup O’ Tea:
If you like the feeling that you’re watching a nightmare, you enjoy long bouts of insubstantial silence, or if you can appreciate stellar acting as the only redeeming virtue of a film.

Steer Clear:
If you want multi-dimensional characters, an involving plot, and a story that makes any kind of sense.

Nothing New Under the Sun:
Fortunately I can think of no other film that bears any semblance to this atrocity.

Buy or Rent:
RENT.

FEATURES

-Language Selection

-Scene Selection

Woulda Been Nice: If the filmmakers would have offered some kind of feature that could possibly explain how they justified making this movie.

Star Trek

PASSING THOUGHTS
As a prequel, Star Trek manages to do in one film what the three latest Star Wars movies could not: create a solid connection between the past and future, and flesh out its main characters in a way that makes you want to find out what happens to them later on.

To be fair, Star Wars did have some disadvantages from the get-go. The lead characters first meet in Episode IV, so there’s no way to show them interacting before then, and the action is scattered across a galaxy. In Star Trek, the adventures pretty much focus on the crew of a single starship, so it’s easier to bring more familiar faces together in a recognizable setting. There is also the fact that Star Wars is more linear in its storytelling while Star Trek is more episodic; it’s easier to make a prequel when there are fewer plot parameters to work with.

Those setbacks aside, Star Trek just goes to greater lengths to be a story in its own right, while also being a believable prelude to the stories that follow. Some of the elements are subtle production-oriented details, such as choosing to forsake the digital craze and shoot the movie on film. The Star Wars prequels were shot digital in HD and then transferred to film, whereas Star Trek was shot in the classical way. Also, the original Star Trek used tangible models and locations, and Abrams tried his best to use real props and settings as often as he could when making the prequel. The Star Wars prequels were made when CGI was all the rage (and overused), and so digitizing as many things as possible was the way to go. There is a difference between using a green screen and having the real thing, and Star Trek does a better job of melding the technological differences from a production standpoint.

The bulk of the improvements aren’t as subtle. First, Star Trek introduces its main characters at the right time; Kirk is in his twenties and on the brink of becoming who and what we all know him to be. In Star Wars, the main character, Anakin, is a child, and doesn’t become remotely interesting until the third film. Because of this awkward starting point, the audience has to be introduced to a slew of new characters so that the story can be moved along with any kind of effect.

Another difference between the prequels is the fact that Kirk and the crew also grow noticeably as people through the story, changing because of the actions they choose. Whereas in Star Wars, Anakin and the Jedi are stagnant; time passes and action moves the story along, but the characters don’t seem to be affected by it. Anakin is rebellious and whiny, the Jedi council is aloof and removed, and Obi-Wan seems to be the only one trying to get anything done.

Star Trek also seems to handle the technological gap better than Star Wars. The Enterprise is modified inside and out, as are the uniforms, but the changes don’t jar you from the story. In Star Wars, the ships and equipment look far newer and more advanced in the prequels than in the films that are supposed to follow. There is a hazy point where the technology of the real world has to parallel the technology of the film, and Star Trek just seems to find that balance better.

Ironically enough, Abrams mentioned how he wanted his film to mimic the original Star Wars movies in terms of the plot and pacing; he knew that the classic Star Trek style might fail to reach a new audience if he didn’t modify its presentation.

Apparently Abrams also learned what not to mimic by watching the Star Wars prequels, and so was able to create a fitting preamble to a successful franchise.


BASICS

Your Cup O’ Tea:
If you enjoyed Star Trek the series, you’ll probably find this an enjoyable romp. It’s relatively clean in terms of language and sexual content; it doesn’t boldly go where no other Trek film has gone before in terms of an escalation in violence, gore, nudity or vulgarity. Not a bad pick for youngsters; if they could handle the new Star Wars films, they could handle this. It’s not terribly complex in terms of plot, and the story is relatively straight-forward. It’s an easy watch with a suitable amount of action to keep you engaged.

Steer Clear:
If you didn’t enjoy Star Trek in any of its earlier forms (tv shows and movies), or if you like more of the horror-ish flicks in the Sci-Fi genre like Alien, Predator, Event Horizon, etc..,

Nothing New Under the Sun:
It’s very much akin to it’s Star Trek ancestors, and it has time-travel elements similar to Back to the Future, Time Machine, etc.., The movie doesn’t revolve around time-travel, but its premise is based around it. Think of an amalgam of all the Star Trek shows but with higher production values and faster pacing.

Buy or Rent:
RENT. There just aren’t enough bonus features to necessitate a purchase; you can enjoy all the material (commentary included) in under three hours. The Blu-ray version would be worth buying, but for those interested in the standard definition version, you can get everything you want in a rental. The features are good, but there’s not nearly enough volume. Unless you want to own the movie because of the film itself, save some money and visit a RedBox.

FEATURES

-Scene Selection

-Language Selection

-Commentary with JJ Abrams, Bryan Burk, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof, and Robert Orci (Director, Producer, Writers, Executive Producers)

-A New Vision
Approx 19.5 minutes. This feature examines the overall vision and filmmaking philosophy of the film rather than getting into detail about casting, plot, etc.., The characters and story aren’t touched on at all, but there is a lot of discussion about the project itself and what elements were important in bringing a new Trek film to the screen. Abrams’ approach to special effects seems to be similar to that of Peter Jackson’s (Lord of the Rings), and there is some sleight of hand that went into creating some of the shots that hails back to the pre-computerized days of cinema. While this feature seems to graze the surface of what was clearly a well-thought-out piece of work, it is a solid piece of behind-the-scenes exploration with very little time spent on the obligatory praise of the personnel involved.
DUH! FACTOR: 1 out of 10

-Gag Reel
Approx 6 minutes. It’s rare to find a serious Sci-Fi movie that’s willing to show a comical side, but Trek actually makes a production out of it. The feature starts off with full-blown picture credits (complete with the original Star Trek theme), and maintains a level of quality that almost seems wasted on a gag reel. Different segments are accompanied by different musical backdrops that enhance the humor, and the types of bloopers are the classic missed lines and physical screw-ups reminiscent of “TV’s Bloopers and Practical Jokes”. There’s even a short cut of a scene where Chris Pine (Kirk) and Zachary Quinto (Spock) run their lines with a Scottish brogue.

-Previews
Transformers 2, GI Joe, Fringe (TV series), Star Trek D-A-C (video game)

Woulda Been Nice: If the copious amount of features on the Blu-ray release were available on the standard DVD. The two-disc version has no extra bonus features—it only adds a digital-copy-disc. It’s always nice to have more of a good thing.

No Country For Old Men

PASSING THOUGHTS
Don’t let the title fool you; watching No Country for Old Men will swiftly convince you that there’s no country for young men either. Or women. Or children. In fact, said country really only caters to psychos with arsenals comprised of compressed air—traffic violations aside.

The movie comes from a novel of the same name written by Cormac McCarthy, and the story is told with the same patient pacing a book would have. There are long shots of scenery and landscapes, and the camera lingers on individuals in such a way that you can almost hear the novel’s narrative describing the person and their demeanor to you. The result is a very deliberate, very rich unfolding of the plot that stands out in a time when the filmmaking trend is to use a lot of cuts and flashes to inject as much stimulus into an audience as possible.

That said, there isn’t a whole lot of plot to unfold. The story isn’t so much about its three main characters as it is about its theme: violence. While it does have elements of a suspense, action, comedy, and western, I think it would most properly fit in the category of “parable”. (I’m pretty sure I’m making up a new category here, but I’m just rolling with the punches.) Much like a parable, this film uses protagonists and antagonists to advance an overall thought or conclusion, not necessarily to tell a certain person’s story. The characters are certainly interesting enough to watch, and the actors are fantastic in the roles they play, but by the end you get the feeling that they were never designed to be the focus. It is a credit to the Coen brothers (Fargo, O’ Brother Where Art Thou?) that they are able to make you care about the fate of the characters (and thus to generate suspense) and to find interest in the plot, while also giving you the freedom to look past both characters and plot when the credits start rolling.

In terms of production, one of the most notable deviances from the norm is the almost complete lack of a soundtrack. Other than faint underscoring at the beginning and end of the film, (and a very brief performance by a robust group of Mexican musicians) there is no music. –And you don’t miss it. This is a huge accomplishment, since so many times music is needed to illicit the intended emotional response from an audience. At its best, music is a welcome accompaniment; at its worst, music is a crutch to patch over bad dialogue or shoddy filmmaking. But the storytelling is so well done that the movie needs neither accompaniment nor crutch, and it succeeds in creating moments without any music at all.

BASICS

Your Cup O’ Tea:
If you enjoy suspense, a gradually unfolding (albeit simple) plot, solid dialogue, grim violence, and a thought-provoking finish.

Steer Clear:
If you’re looking for a feel-good, heroes-triumph-over-villains type story.

Nothing New Under the Sun:
Has the resourcefulness of The Fugitive, the relentless pursuit and emotionless execution of “The Terminator”, and, for the first twenty minutes or so, the dialogue volume of Castaway. (Not to mention the villain’s propensity for flipping a coin to decide a person’s fate, much like Two-Face of “Batman Forever”.)

Buy or Rent:
RENT. Not a whole lot of replay value here. While there’s some minor ambiguity, there’s nothing crucial that will be revealed in the light of a second viewing. Not exactly a fun-times-shoot-em-up romp that will make it appealing enough to take off the shelf within the next six months.

FEATURES

-Oscar Winner for Best Picture

-Scene Selection

-Subtitles

-Register DVD (Yay!)

-Making of No Country for Old Men
Featurette, approx 24 minutes. Nothing particularly revealing here. Brief looks at casting, defining the movie genre, the set, and the costumes. A little talk about the novel and what the film means, as well as a few shots of some storyboards used. DUH! FACTOR: 6 out of 10

-Working with the Coens
Essentially a short collection of praises from cast and crew
regarding how awesome the Coens are. Not much new info…but you’ll want to work with the Coens on their next project. DUH! FACTOR: 9 out of 10

-Diary of a County Sheriff
A brief exploration into the character of Sheriff Ed Bell
and a bit more on the main themes of the film. DUH! FACTOR: 8 out of 10

Woulda Been Nice: The Coens seem like a thoughtful pair. A director’s commentary might have made a second viewing worthwhile.

Lions for Lambs

PASSING THOUGHTS
This is a unique political movie in that there’s no slant or favored perspective, and the focus is not on “them” but on “me”. It doesn’t point fingers at the media, the political parties or the military, but rather it uses them as a way to gradually point the finger at we the people. The dialogue is engaging and well thought-out, and the performances are stellar across the board. Tom Cruise does come off a little like a polished Jerry MaGuire, but apart from that the acting is superb.

It is a film that could easily provoke thought and discussion about world events, but it does so by laying out various arguments and raising questions that go unanswered in the script. This can make for a frustrated viewing if you are an active thinker and want to pursue a train of thought to a satisfactory conclusion. It would be impossible to address every tangent and comment made in the film, but the desire to see that happen is still there. In order to appreciate the movie for what it is and follow the flow of the three stories, it becomes necessary to turn off your own perspectives and embrace the ones presented by the characters on screen. Fortunately that process is made easier by a smart bit of writing that doesn’t tell you the right way to think.

There is one moment that showed some subtle favoritism when Janine Roth examines the pictures on Senator Irving’s wall. The images associate Irving with GW Bush, the Republican Party, and being a “young gun”. Roth’s political views are never really spelled out, nor are those of Professor Malley and Todd Hayes. Aligning one person’s perspective with images that illicit a knee-jerk reaction from many people doesn’t come off as impartial. Anyone with a closed mind about Republicans or Bush is not going to have an open mind about the perspectives of a man who appears to represent those entities.

In addition, there are several premises that are taken as truth that may be hard to swallow for some folks. Since the movie takes pains to avoid stirring up political strife, I will not thwart that by injecting my own views into this review. Let’s just say that this film is not perfectly impartial, but it’s probably about as fair as humans could make it.

Quality and equality aside, this movie is primarily driven by dialogue and doesn’t have much of an edge. Perhaps I’m too apathetic towards movies about apathy, but I didn’t feel much of an impact when the credits started rolling. There is a call to action, but what exactly that action should be isn’t clear. Idealism and cynicism are both advanced, but neither one points to a solution. This is plus with regards to keeping an open mind, but it doesn’t provide any kind of consequence or conclusion. The men who die represent the only real change the movie presents, but the deaths don’t advance any thoughts past what is established at the outset of the film.

“Lions for Lambs” is a very good piece of filmmaking and a great instigation for discussion, but the effects of it are primarily felt in the mind, not the heart. Somehow there is an intellectual detachment that by all accounts shouldn’t exist. Perhaps it lies in the fact that the movie is essentially about philosophy, and while philosophy can be entertaining, it is very rarely engaging.

BASICS

Your Cup O’ Tea:
If you enjoy a well-matched battle of wits and words, you are politically savvy, or you like to ponder and digest broad schools of thought.

Steer Clear:
If you’re looking for a movie that will bash a political party or world view, or if you want a fast-paced action flick. While there is action amidst the discussion, it comprises less than a third of the running time.

Nothing New Under the Sun:
The pacing and action/dialogue ratio is very similar to that of “Spy Games” and the dialogue pops like a political “Ocean’s Eleven”.

Buy or Rent:
RENT. While there is a director’s commentary that may prompt a second viewing, the core of the story is something you probably won’t be returning to. The antagonist is a thought process, not a flesh-and-blood villain, and the script is written to make an impact, not draw you back for more.

FEATURES

-Language Selection

-Scene Selection

-Commentary with Robert Redford

-The Making of “Lions for Lambs”:
Approx 21 minutes. It looks at the typical topics covered in a featurette: story, casting, building the crew, and creating the music. Most of the discussion is why people and decisions worked for the movie instead of how they came to be a part of it. There is a good bit of discussion regarding the messages and perspectives behind the film.
DUH! FACTOR: 6 out of 10

-Script to Screen:
Approx 8 minutes. More discussion on the themes of the movie and what inspired the writer to craft the script. Praises and adulations all ‘round.
DUH! FACTOR: 8 out of 10

-UA Legacy:
Approx 7 minutes. A montage of the UA films made and what awards they received for them.

-Teaser Trailer

-Theatrical Trailer

-Trailers (5)

Woulda Been Nice: If the action was more involving and less symbolic. The soldiers came off as representing what the discussion was all about and not so much on people fighting for survival.

Juno

PASSING THOUGHTS
It’s a rare occurrence when you actually enjoy hearing characters talk in a film. So many times dialogue is simply used to segue between action sequences or to reveal some crucial plot device. Few are the films that give conversation a chance to be entertaining, and fewer still are the films that actually succeed in making conversation entertaining. But thanks to the very distinct voice of the writer and the stellar performances of the actors, “Juno” is able to tell a fascinating story with only words and a natural progression of events.

When it comes to a movie about teen pregnancy, there are usually only two directions for the plot to go. Either it will be an obnoxious tale of low-brow humor and crass gimmicks that attempts to throw some kind of heart into the fray, or it will be an increasingly depressing and morbid exploration of the human condition with an emphasis on tragic consequences. “Juno” marches right between these two options. Many times I was worried that the bottom would fall out and the events would culminate in a suicide, accident, or some other depressing method of ending a life. I was waiting for the parents to turn into irrational adversaries full of animosity and hatred, or for Juno to accidentally kill the baby, or for Paulie to be a jerk and flake out. But thankfully none of those clichés came to fruition.

While the language got a bit coarse at times, it never went Tarantino. There wasn’t a time when it seemed like the writer went for a cheap laugh or made an attempt to induce shock. If something was funny or shocking, it was naturally that way. Juno and her friends use an inspired and advanced vocabulary that most 30-year-olds don’t have, but that adds to the appeal. It’s like a Calvin and Hobbes comic; there’s something appealing about having awareness, maturity, and complexity coming from someone far too young to be at that level. At times it can be a little distracting, but for the most part it makes the characters more vibrant and likeable.

The character of Juno reminds me a lot of a young Janeane Garofalo in terms of her mannerisms, delivery and thought processes. I’m not assigning any kind of value to that comparison, I’m just saying that there are some amazing similarities between Garofalo’s early stand-up work and Ellen Page’s portrayal. She has a very dry yet peculiarly emotive delivery in most scenes that bears a strong resemblance to the sarcasm associated with Garofalo’s work.

What really takes the story to the next level is probably Juno’s attitude through the whole ordeal. There’s no real self-pity, no depression, no long moments of introspection where she contemplates how wretched her life has become. In her own unique way, she keeps an honest and positive outlook as she moves forward. Her character is so crisply defined that she would almost seem two-dimensional, but her range of emotions and level of self-awareness makes her more complex, and therefore more interesting to watch.

BASICS

Your Cup O’ Tea:
If you like snappy, crisp, somewhat stylized dialogue, steady character development, and something of an edgy coming-of-age-type film.

Steer Clear:
If you’re looking for overt physical comedy, a traditional love story, or if you avoid anything that might elicit an emotional or mental response. There’s some language and subject matter that conservative audiences may have a difficult time enjoying. It’s a very borderline PG-13.

Nothing New Under the Sun:
The teenage lifestyle and subjects are vaguely reminiscent of “Clueless”, and the dialogue is like a teenage (and censored) version of that found in “Pulp Fiction”. Honestly not a lot of films like this one.

Buy or Rent:
BUY. This is the first movie I’ve seen that has prompted me to want to watch it again on the same day. It’s not complex, just fun to indulge in. If you’re not huge into dialogue and like more action (sexual and otherwise) this won’t pull you back, but the overall good-feeling and swell acting does have a draw. In addition, there are a good number of special features on the DVD that could make a purchase worthwhile. If you saw it and liked it, chances are you’ll want to keep it around.

FEATURES

-Inside Look: 2 minute sneak peak of Fox’s film “What Happens In Vegas”

-Scene Selection

-Language Selection

-Feature Commentary with Jason Reitman and Diablo Cody

-Screen Test:
Approx 22 minutes. This is a collection of seven scenes that were apparently done as screen tests for the film. No bloopers or outtakes, just the scenes acted in front of a black screen with minimal props. It’s fun to look at initially, but the tests are so well done that it’s almost like watching the scene in the movie. The only differences are that sometimes one of the secondary roles is played by a different actor.

-Cast and Crew Jam:
Approx 3 minutes. Wacky behavior by cast and crew in front of a sparkly background set to music. It can be fun to watch everyone having fun, but it might not hold your attention for long.

-Gag Reel:
Approx 5 minutes. A lot of “I’m sorry” moments, missed lines, etc.., The usual in terms of mistakes, but nothing really funny. Ellen has a good thirty second chunk trying to get a line out (obviously a little slap happy) which is amusing, but the rest are just so-so outtakes. Lots of ‘em though!

-Deleted Scenes (with optional commentary from Jason Reitman and Diablo Cody):
Approx 20 minutes. There are eleven deleted scenes total, and they range from minor alterations to all new material. Some of them fill in holes but most are extraneous. It’s more of the solid dialogue and performances though, so it’s worth taking a look at. Good scenes, but as always, there’s a reason why they ended up on the cutting room floor.

-Gag Take:
Approx 2 minutes. This is essentially a performance between Rainn Wilson and Jason Reitman as actor and director engage in a mock argument about hitting the mark for the bags. It’s amusing to watch the other folks on set trying not to laugh. For his part, Reitman was very believable as an irate director.

Woulda Been Nice: To include some less-produced footage for the bonus materials. The jam, the gags and even the screen tests looked rather polished. For a film like this, it’s nice to have the interviews and background. Also the music, which stands out, doesn’t get any attention. I don’t mind, but many films lately have dedicated a section to talking about the score. It was a little strange not to have that.

Iron Man

PASSING THOUGHTS
I haven’t actually bought a DVD in a long time. Usually I just use RedBox when I do reviews, and it’s very rare for me to buy the DVD if I hadn’t given it much attention when it was in the theater. When I saw “Iron Man” back in May, I earmarked funds for the DVD release date, and yesterday I went ahead and bought the 2-disc version.

Why am I telling you this?

Eight weeks later I saw the much anticipated “Batman: Dark Knight”. It was a good, solid movie, but I don’t plan on picking up a copy when it comes out. I asked myself, “Why?” They’re both well-made comic book adaptations, they were both well received, and their protagonist and supporting characters closely parallel each other in many ways.

The answer came to me in a vision of two stone tablets sitting next to a burning bush. The tablets were titled: “Ten Reasons Why “Iron Man” Is Funner To Watch Than “Dark Knight””. Chalking the poor grammar up to sloppy shorthand, I pondered the comparisons and found there to be truth to them. Mind you, these aren’t reasons why Iron Man is better than Batman—in many ways the characters are knight and day, and it’s not fair to compare two different worlds. These are just the reasons why I actually want to watch “Iron Man” again—why it works as a DVD rental and not just a theater experience.

I. Better Butler
Batman has Alfred: An aging, fatherly figure who brings Bruce his meals and provides sentimental advice with a British accent. Iron Man has Jarvis: A state-of-the-art computer system that takes care of his mansion and doubles as the interface in the Iron Man suit. Bruce leaves Alfred behind when he goes to work, but the snazzy British accent accompanies/assists Tony, even when he’s in the heat of battle.

II. Behind Every Great Man…
Bruce has Rachel: An independent and self-assured professional who berates and judges him incessantly and ends up inhibiting Batman by making herself a target. Tony has Penny: An independent and self-assured professional who stands by him with unwavering loyalty and saves his life twice.

III. A Man’s Home
Bruce lives in a lavishly drab, contemporary, gothic mansion in one of the most depressing cities in the comic book universe; Batman operates out of a spartan cave with a leather chair and a PC. Tony lives in Malibu in a stunning cliffside mansion-of-the-future, complete with waterfalls and holographic windows; Iron Man works out of an immense lab with vintage cars, sentient robots, and what can only be described as one of the most elaborate computer systems seen onscreen.

IV. Public Speaking
When Batman talks, he sounds like he’s an avid smoker of 80 years—almost like a mix of James Earl Jones and a post-Scarface Al Pacino. When Iron Man talks, his voice is crisp and digital with a hint of inflection; a mix that represents a merging of man and machine.

V. Villain Velocity
When Batman hits someone, they crumple to the ground. When Iron Man hits someone, they fly through the air as if they have a propulsion system of their own.

VI. IQ to Shame Einstein
Bruce Wayne is a clever detective, able to follow clues and track down colorful villains. He also has the intelligence to utilize previously-invented technology for his cause and spray-paint it black. Tony Starks is a certified genius who built his first engine before puberty and who escaped from a cadre of terrorists using nothing but a paperclip, a blowtorch, and a few spare rocket parts.

VII. Radiant Centerpiece
Batman’s chest is adorned with a black bat that blends in with the rest of his ensemble and does little for his overall appearance. Iron Man’s chest is adorned with a miniature arc reactor that glows with the brilliance of 6 giga-joules per second.

VIII. Fire With Fire
Batman combats deadly force with fisticuffs and grappling hooks. He refuses to use guns, though he apparently has no qualms with packing a full arsenal on his vehicles. Iron Man combats deadly force with deadly force: big guns, little guns, even guns with laser-guided bullets. …And don’t forget the flame thrower…

IX. Best Dressed
Batman wears armor that costs approximately $300,000 that provides limited protection. Iron Man wears armor that costs $22 million (average cost of a fighter jet) that protects him from everything except bigger versions of himself.

X. For His Own Good
Batman is willing to sacrifice himself to spare the life of a mass murderer. Iron Man is willing to sacrifice himself to end the life of a mass murderer.

BASICS

Your Cup O’ Tea:
If you like action, superheroes, seamless CGI effects, engaging characters, and relatively straightforward plots that don’t require too much emotional or intellectual investment. In terms of comics-to-film, this is close to “Spiderman 2” and the “X-Men” franchise.

Steer Clear:
If you don’t like sci-fi or fantastic physics. If comics strike you as lame or uninteresting, this may not be worth a look. Also, “Iron Man” angles more towards the fun, visually-pleasing elements of the comic book genre; it doesn’t have the social and human exploration that “Batman: Dark Knight” does.

Nothing New Under the Sun:
This is a superhero movie, so it’s going to feel like many of the other superhero movies out there. There’s no new twist to take it in totally different direction, though the Iron Man character itself has never been presented like this before.

Buy or Rent:
BUY. Unless you’re pretty sure this isn’t your type of movie and you want to rent it just to see what the hype is about, you’ll probably want to watch it again. It doesn’t have the weight or length of an epic, so it’s easily something you could pop in and watch on a whim. There aren’t any dull scenes to slow the pacing down, and there are plenty of moments that are fun to revisit.

FEATURES

-Languages

-Scenes

-Deleted/Extended Scenes
Approx 24 minutes. There are 11 scenes total, and most of them are “deleted”. The ones that are extended are interesting to watch because they show footage from the movie without the sound effects, music, and green screen mapping, in addition to the extra material. There are a few throwaways here, but most of these scenes were cut because they didn’t work with the pacing of an action flick. If the movie was just about the life of billionaire Tony Starks, they would have been entertaining and probably would have made the final cut. There are also a few key scenes that answer questions (like what Rhodes was doing when Tony got ambushed) and clarify relationships (like a scene between Rhodes and General Gabriel where we find out just how much Rhodes put on the line to go looking for Tony). There’s even an alternate ending to the rooftop battle that is a combination of finished and incomplete footage. All in all, one of the better collections of omitted material I’ve seen.
DUH! FACTOR: 1 out of 10

-Iron Man: Armored Adventures
A brief preview of the new animated Iron Man.

-Previews
There are three: “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” (DVD), “Star Trek” (prequel teaser), and “Hulk”.

Woulda Been Nice: If there were more extras on the standard DVD. 24 minutes of pretty respectable footage is a nice bonus, but it doesn’t tap into any of the behind-the-scenes features. If you rent “Iron Man”, that’s all you’ll see. But if you buy the 2-disc version…

-I am Iron Man
Approx 196 minutes. This feature can be seen as a whole, or viewed in 7 parts. It’s essentially an all-out documentary on making the movie. It covers everything from pre-production negotiation to post-production reception speculation. There’s something for everyone here, although some parts may be tedious for anyone who isn’t interested in the film-making process. This is an exhaustive exploration that reminded me of the deluxe “Lord of the Rings” features. It taps into all aspects of the film, complete with interviews from director, actors, producers, writers, special effects personnel—everyone.
DUH! FACTOR: 0 out of 10

-The Invincible Iron Man
Approx 47 minutes. This is a feature for the fans of the Iron Man comic. Jim Lee talks about the conception and development, and the history of Tony Starks and his alter ego is meticulously unfolded and explored. Lots of visuals from the comics, interviews with Marvel artists, and discussions on how the comic was converted to the screen.
DUH! FACTOR: 1 out of 10

-Wired: The Visual Effects of Iron Man
Approx 27 minutes. Exactly as it sounds, this feature looks at the three different special effects companies that handled the visual effects. It discusses everything from the suit to the HUD (Head’s Up Display) inside the helmet. Again, very extensive and detailed with some good technical jargon and a real good look at the folks who invented/created the great visuals.
DUH! FACTOR: 0 out of 10

-Robert Downey Jr. Screen Test
Approx 6 minutes. Essentially this is Robert doing some of the scenes from the movie sans backgrounds, wardrobe, etc.., No bloopers really, but there is some ad-libbing and a variation on some of the lines from the movie. Amusing enough for what it is, though you might not make it through all six minutes.
DUH! FACTOR: 4 out of 10

-The Actor’s Process
Approx 4 minutes. This is a rehearsal with Jeff, John, and Robert. It shows them working through character motivation, action, dialogue, and interpretation during the scene where Obadiah tells Tony that he’s the one who cut Tony out of the company. Great to see for aspiring/current actors.
DUH! FACTOR: 0 out of 10

-The Onion: “Wildly Popular Iron Man Trailer To Be Adopted Into Full Length Film”
Approx 2.5 minutes. A news spoof between an anchor and his contact regarding making the Iron Man trailer into a film. It’s a humorous skit interspersed with clips from the trailer.
DUH! FACTOR: 2 out of 10

-Galleries
Concept Art, Tech, Unit Photography, Posters. Good art, but small and a bit of a pain to navigate through.

I Am Legend

PASSING THOUGHTS
‘Sméagol on speed.’

From the first moment I saw the Dark Seekers of “I am Legend”, that thought kept echoing through my mind. Sure Sméagol/Gollum (“Lord of the Rings”) was shorter and had the capacity for speech, but that’s about as far as the differences went. My attention to this parallel was easily diverted, however, by some great visuals and an intense performance by Will Smith. I’m not sure what the theatrical experience was like, but watching this movie alone in my room created an artificial intimacy with Robert and Sam that helped draw me into the story.

Unfortunately, while the filmmaking produced great suspense and solid action, it didn’t lend itself very well to the telling of that story. I kept getting the feeling that there was more to it than what was being shown to me, and after hearing what the folks involved had to say about it, I am convinced that the movie missed out on a deeper angle.

As a film based on a novel, the filmmakers had two decisions to make. The first decision was whether it would hold true to the book or merely use the literature as a foundation. The second choice was whether it would be a plot-driven movie accented by action, or an action movie supported by a plot. In both cases the latter option was chosen, the result of which was a film of “Mind-Blowing Excitement” (Pete Hammond, MAXIM) that blasted it’s way through subtler moments and themes. There is only one minor twist in the otherwise straight-forward plot, and that twist occurs with the moment of inevitability.

During the course of a movie, there are many directions the story can go. The audience might have a notion of what the outcome will be, but it doesn’t know exactly how that outcome will be reached or what casualties might be involved. Ideally a film will keep that mystery alive right until the moment of resolution, but sometimes a revelation is made earlier on that induces the tension of a climax before the climax actually arrives. In that revelation, the audience realizes that there can only be one of two outcomes: intervention or destruction. This is called the moment of inevitability.

For “I Am Legend”, the initial moment of inevitability comes when Robert’s house is besieged by Dark Seekers. After the defenses fail, it becomes obvious that either Robert will die, or something must intervene on his behalf. Since Robert is not the last man alive, the theme of the movie isn’t supposed to be a grim twilight-zone tale of what it would be like to witness the extinction of humanity as we know it; Robert’s survival is key. But with his back literally against the wall, survival doesn’t seem possible. At the same time, there have been no allusions made to an inherent weakness in the enemy, an alternate way of escape, or the existence of any sort of cavalry that could intervene and save the day. The only unknown factor is the recurring imagery of a butterfly, but that seems irrelevant given the circumstances. There simply is no satisfactory resolution to the situation.

That is unless there’s an abrupt shift in the plot that creates another moment of inevitability.

Such a shift occurs when Robert realizes that he has found a cure. In that instant, he becomes irrelevant; his survival is no longer the pivotal factor. The mantle of hero is passed from a man to a vial of blood, and this alteration allows the man himself to provide the intervention. It’s a last-minute twist that creates the opportunity for both sacrifice and escape, but the result is an ending that is more forced than satisfying.

While “I Am Legend” is unique in many ways, it is still ultimately about humanity’s struggle for survival. Will Smith has now prevailed against robots, aliens and plagues—all of which threatened to bring the human race to extinction. This film was a great romp that had high production value, but with a plot that offered no new perspectives, it could just as easily have been called, “I Am Redundant”.

BASICS

Your Cup O’ Tea:
If you enjoy the typical action-thriller flick, albeit with some lulls. If you like Will Smith’s work in general, this is definitely one of his better performances. Guns, explosion, high-octane bad guys and some great imagery.

Steer Clear:
If you want villains who have dialogue and a clear purpose.

Nothing New Under the Sun:
Enemies and general premise bear similarities to “28 Days Later” with a touch of “Resident Evil”, exploration of solitude reminiscent of “Castaway”, and just a brief moment of “Old Yeller”.

Buy or Rent:
RENT. It’s worth picking up just for the depiction of a deserted Manhattan and the suspenseful moments of solitude, but the content is a little heavy for repeated viewing.

FEATURES

-Scene Selection

-Subtitles/Spoken Languages

-Animated Comics:
4 total. These are short, quasi-animated stories that explore various tragedies brought on by the virus. The first one focuses on a girl in Hong Kong, the second on a convict in Colorado, the third on a compound in Central America, and the last one on a family in New Delhi. Though there is little animation involved, these stories are far more graphic than the movie. Seems somewhat along the lines of what “Animatrix” did with “The Matrix”, only on a smaller scale.

That’s it for the features you can actually watch on your TV. To watch the next two features you have to use your DVD ROM drive and internet access—the video requires buffering and streams live, so you may experience some technical difficulties.

-Cautionary Tale: The Science of “I Am Legend”:
Approx 20 minutes. This is an examination of the nature and history of viruses. It does not discuss viruses in relation to the film, but rather as real-life threats that exist now. It’s very much akin to something you’d see on the Discovery Channel; insightful and disturbing.
DUH! FACTOR: 1 out of 10

-Making of “I Am Legend”:
Approx 52 minutes. This section is broken down into over twenty sub-sections averaging about 2.5 minutes each. There is no option to watch them all together, so you’ll have to click on each topic one at a time. The subjects are everything from closing down 5th Avenue in New York City, to the training of the dogs playing Sam, to how Will got buff for his role. Some sections are more interesting than others, but there is definitely something for everyone.
DUH! FACTOR: 3 out of 10

Woulda Been Nice: To have the extra features on the DVD. Frankly it was a pain in the butt to go on-line, update media player, update protection software, and then have to go section by section through the extras, all the while being completely at the mercy of my internet connection. They could have easily put everything (including the alternate ending you can only get by buying the two-disc set) on one DVD and made the whole thing a lot more worthwhile.

Hitman

PASSING THOUGHTS
While watching “Hitman”, I was beset with numerous, thought-provoking questions that had me plumbing the remotest recesses of my mind in search of answers. Questions such as these:

If I had an aerial view of four bald guys bouncing to-and-fro and fighting awkwardly in a subway car, would it look more like pinball gone amuck or an abstract game of pool? Is the word “Unrated” merely code for, “This movie has all the nudity of a porno but without the sex”? Have I missed something? Why is Timothy Olyphant acting from the nose down? Is he related to that guy who played Kyle Reese in “The Terminator”? Who did what with the plot? How hard can it be to keep tabs on a guy with a barcode on the back of his head? Have I missed something? Can watching a movie about people getting shot actually be more painful than getting shot myself? How do good men know when to kill?

This last query is addressed at the end of the flick by Mike Whittier who simply says, “It’s a crap shoot.” One word in that anti-climatic answer resonated with my chapped spirit.

“Crap.”

Now, I know that the conversion from videogames to movies has never gone very well; “Super Mario Bros”, “Street Fighter”, “Mortal Kombat”, “Doom”, and “Final Fantasy” have all set a precedent for failure. It’s not easy to take a plot that’s designed around game mechanics and transform it into its own entity…but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. If Hollywood can turn an antiquated, animatronics-based ride into a blockbuster, anything is possible.

That said, this movie would have been perfect as a series of cut-scenes for a Hitman videogame. The visuals and plot were good enough to supplement a game-playing experience, but not to replace it.

One of the biggest problems with the film lies in the main character, a man known simply as Agent 47. First, from a performance perspective, Olyphant doesn’t offer any levels to the character. He goes from placid to dramatic with nothing in between. His movements don’t look like the polished techniques of a professional, but rather the mechanical motions of an actor who is trying to look methodical. His delivery is saddled with the same strain to seem stoic, the result being that he sounds like he’s merely reciting his lines with intense indifference.

Putting the portrayal aside, the character of 47 doesn’t lend itself very well to being the protagonist of a film. He is a bad guy, plain and simple. Just because there are other bad guys trying to kill him does not make him a good guy. He has a crucifix key but no apparent morality; he kills thugs and cops with equal zeal. At the end of the film he says he wants to stop being targeted, which just makes it sound like he can dish it out but he can’t take it. There’s nothing admirable about him; he has no charisma, no personality. A videogame hero doesn’t require any of those things, but a cinematic hero does.

I could appreciate the first portion of the movie in which he was a focused instrument of destruction. Good bad guys can be fun to watch too, as Mel Gibson proved in “Payback”. However, as soon as the woman enters the picture, 47’s focus goes awry. It’s not so much that she starts stirring up his buried humanity (although she does succeed in fostering some lust) as much as she confuses and confounds him. I liked the fact that he put her in the trunk—that was spot on with what the character seemed to be about. But as soon as he bought her breakfast and let her ride shotgun, the whole thing went downhill.

Perhaps a different actor could have made it work, but the character construction itself was just as prohibitive to success. 47 was transformed into a weapon, and the process left him a hollow, efficient killer. That is good enough for an antagonist, but a protagonist needs more. Jason Bourne was a living weapon in the “Bourne” trilogy, but it was his desperate struggle to reclaim his identity that made the character, and the story, work.

BASICS

Your Cup O’ Tea:
If you enjoy unrelenting and wonton violence, or if you’re a fan of the video game who simply wants to see Hitman incarnate.

Steer Clear:
If you are bothered by overacting, gaping plot holes, projectile blood, full nudity, or rampant baldness. The niche for this flick is narrow.

Nothing New Under the Sun:
A vague hint of style and content from “The Matrix”, the girl-caught-in-the-middle element of “Assassins”, the basic plot mechanics of “Shooter”, and the violence and physics of “Desperado”.

Buy or Rent:
RENT. Unless you’re a die-hard fan of the franchise, one viewing is most likely all you’ll need. The bonus features don’t add anything significant to the experience—you’ll get through them in less than ten minutes.

FEATURES

-Scene Selection

-Languages

-Deleted Scenes:
5 total. The first one adds a pool and some bikinis to the initial execution scene; the second shows the thoroughness and tenacity of the Hitman when his target survives an explosion. The third is just a short clip from the movie with one of the lines removed. The fourth offering is a bit more interesting, as it shows an entire scene from the movie shot in a completely different location. The last segment is an alternate ending with incomplete editing. This is probably the most significant contribution to the movie as a whole, since it is cinematic proof that “Hitman” could actually have been worse.

Woulda Been Nice: To actually see those barcodes get some use. Maybe a fight scene in a grocery store in which one of the hitmen’s heads gets shoved over a food-scanner and his number comes up on the register screen.

Forbidden Kingdom

PASSING THOUGHTS
The key to making a children’s movie successful with adults is simple: put something in the film that adults can appreciate. Modern animated films achieve this primarily by incorporating adult-level comedic relief that is generated by a specific character or through clever dialogue that’s woven throughout the story. For live-action films, the draw is usually in the visual effects; “Wizard of Oz” had Technicolor, “Star Wars” had ILM, “Toy Story” had Pixar, “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” had Jim Henson. The problem with “The Forbidden Kingdom” is that it’s a children’s story (originally written by Fusco as a modernized Chinese fairy tale for his young son) presented as an adult story with nothing new to draw the adult mind or eye.

The film’s dialogue is greatly lacking any sort of comedy or depth, and its story moves forward without continuity and focus; such shortcomings are of no consequence to children, but they prove to be a hindrance when it comes to engaging the older demographic. The main draw the film offers is the visual effects, only there’s nothing here that hasn’t been seen in films like “The Matrix” and “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”. The colors are nice and saturated, the costumes are fun, the sets are terrific, and the locations are fresh, but the action and plot that take place among these visuals is lacking substance.

A loose rule of thumb when considering whether or not to watch films like this is to figure that the target audience is the age of the youngest protagonist. If you see a 15-year-old in the previews, chances are the film is designed to appeal to 15-year-olds and younger. Some movies escape this limitation by surrounding the young protagonist with adult situations and/or the aforementioned mature comedy and visual effects.

More than anything, the special features on the DVD reveal why the story, dialogue, and characterizations (everything but the fighting) are awkward and lacking cohesion. Some of it has to do with the fragmented insertion of Chinese folklore into a Westernized film, and some of it has to do with the fact that some important decisions were either made late or not made at all.

All in all though, this is a great film for today’s kids. Adults in general may not appreciate it as much, but I’m sure parents will; it’s a great alternative to films like “The Adventures of Shark Boy and Lava Girl”.

BASICS

Your Cup O’ Tea:
If you’re a parent looking for a film that you can watch with your kids without wanting to renounce parenthood, or you’re 12-years-old or younger and haven’t been able to watch more adult Kung Fu movies. The director relates to it as a Chinese “Wizard of Oz”, and I’d say that’s pretty darned accurate. If you’re in the mood for flying monkeys (albeit without the bellboy uniforms), wobbly sidekicks, and magic artifacts sought by melodramatic villains, this is right up your alley.

Steer Clear:
If you’re expecting a typical Jet Li film or an authentic Chinese tale like “Crouching Tiger”. This is not a complex or deep story; it’s a fairy tale aimed at kids. Unless you are simply enamored of the sort of fight scenes seen in most action movies since “Matrix”, there’s no real draw to this film.

Nothing New Under the Sun:
Reminded me of “Last Action Hero” in that it’s a young child’s fantasy of being transported to a mystical land, being surrounded by his heroes, having swashbuckling adventures there, becoming someone greater than he was at the beginning, and of course saving the world. It also felt like Disney’s “Three Musketeers” or “Rookie of the Year” in that it depicts adult situations and events while somehow managing to take the edge off of them. There’s killing, but its kid-friendly killing. There’s drama, but it never gets too serious. “Hook” would be another example, though Spielberg managed to make that a little more appealing to an older audience. I would say it’s also like “Chronicles of Narnia”, but even that had a little more tension and subtext than this one did.

Buy or Rent:
RENT. Unless you’re a parent looking to replace any number of horrifically painful children’s movies, this one won’t spend much time off the shelf. If you haven’t already seen it, the seven minutes of outtakes almost make the $1 rental worth it, and the other bonus features are interesting enough to warrant a look. The whole DVD can be easily digested in one sitting though.

FEATURES

-Languages

-Scenes

-Feature Commentary by Director Rob Minkoff & Writer John Fusco

-The Kung Fu Dream Team
Approx 10.5 minutes. Essentially a praise session where everyone talks about how great it is to have everyone else working on the film. It focuses on the Chinese talent, which makes up most of the cast as well as a huge percentage of the crew. It has the typical documentary elements in it, though it doesn’t discuss the script, music, or story—most of those are discussed on other features. This is a collection of interviews and footage that explains why this movie has the true Kung Fu Dream Team. Aptly named, I guess.
DUH! FACTOR: 7 out of 10

-Dangerous Beauty
Approx 6 minutes. A featurette about the two female stars of the film. There are a few tidbits of new information, but a great deal of it consists of interviews with Jackie Chan where he simply praises the girls on their performances. There’s some good behind-the-scenes footage, and you get to see what the White Demoness looks like without white hair.
DUH! FACTOR: 6 out of 10

-Discovering China
Approx 8 minutes. Discussion and interviews regarding what it’s like to shoot in China. It reveals the real life locations of scenes from the movie. If you’ve actually watched the film already, there’s not a lot of new/exciting footage, although it is interesting to realize that even the Boston scenes were constructed and shot on a soundstage in China.
DUH! FACTOR: 8 out of 10

-Filming in Chinawood
Approx 7.5 minutes. This feature explores the vast Hengdian World Studio in China and what it’s like to make a film there.
DUH! FACTOR: 1 out of 10

-Monkey King and the Eight Immortals
Approx 9 minutes. This section focuses on John Fusco as he discusses his own experiences with Kung Fu and talks about the mythology of the Monkey King and the Eight Immortals on which the movie is based. There’s a lot of footage of John on the beach going through the Kung Fu motions inserted throughout as well. For anyone who doesn’t already know Chinese mythology, this is new, if not interesting, information.
DUH! FACTOR: 1 out of 10

-Storyboarding and Previz: The Movie Before the Movie
Approx 6.5 minutes. Rob Minkoff’s narration accompanies most of this feature. It covers the basics of combining green screen/computer effects with real life, and shows how crude 3-D models are used as a sort of animated storyboard (“Previz” or Previsualization). Nothing new really, just some particulars for this film.
DUH! FACTOR: 8 out of 10

-Blooper Reel
Approx 8 minutes. What’s a Jackie Chan flick without the bloopers? These are unusual in that the footage looks like post-production quality and features a lot of the music found in the finished scenes. You see what it would look like if a blooper actually happened in the course of the movie, as opposed to seeing shots that show mistakes on a movie set. There are some added sound effects and the music is stopped at key points to emphasize the jokes, all of which help to create an amusing, “America’s Funniest Home Videos”-esq cocktail of cinematic blunders.
DUH! FACTOR: 2 out of 10

-Deleted Scenes (With or without Commentary by Rob Minkoff & John Fusco)
Approx 7.5 minutes. Six total: “River Boat Escape”, “Jade Warlord Kick Warrior Down Stairs”, “Desert Trek”, “Moonlight Kiss”, “Li and Yifei in Caves”, and “Li and Yifei Take Out Guards”. Half are just throw away bits of action or movement with no real content, the other three involve a little more dialogue and action but don’t fill in any gaps. All of them are finished scenes (complete with subtitles during Chinese dialogue) however.
DUH! FACTOR: 6 out of 10

-Also from Lionsgate
Approx 5.5 minutes. Previews for “Bangkok Dangerous”, “War”, and “The Bank Job”.

Woulda Been Nice: If I was young enough to enjoy this.

Enchanted

PASSING THOUGHTS
Though it probably goes without saying, if you’re old enough to read this review, this movie is not for you. And if you’re a parent with children…this movie may not be for them either.

“Enchanted” is not the first movie to combine live-action with animation; “Roger Rabbit”, “Mary Poppins” and “The Incredible Mr. Limpet” are just a few of the flicks that used this technique decades before. However, “Enchanted” takes the merging a step further and brings the idyllic elements and themes of animation into the reality we live in. While initially there is a stark and seemingly irreconcilable contrast between the two worlds, eventually that contrast is muted; fantasy becomes reality and reality escapes into fantasy.

This blurring between the real world and an animated one can be a dangerous thing in a time when more and more people are trying to escape into fantasy.

Millions of people lose themselves every day in games like World of Warcraft and The Sims. Fantasy sports teams provide the same effect, albeit on a far more subdued and socially-acceptable level. For many, living in a fantasy is vastly more enjoyable than coping with the tedious and painful events that occupy a lifetime. Diversions become escape, and people look to that escape more and more as time goes on. The world of animation—particularly the brand of animation that Disney cultivates—illustrates the very core of fantastic desire. Harmony with nature, enduring love, incomprehensible bravery and heroism, purity, good’s triumph over evil, and happily ever after are just some of the fantastic elements found in most animated features. While it’s a wonderful thing for children (and even adults) to be exposed to the very best the human condition has to offer, it is a tragedy to create the illusion that this life can become a fairy tale.

A couple in the vicious throes of divorce suddenly rekindles their love after a strange girl makes a comment about how lucky the man is to have his wife because her eyes sparkle. A single father who was abandoned by his wife almost immediately drops his baggage, pain, fears and current girlfriend to embrace his true love. A woman, obviously in love with her boyfriend, completely forgives his fickle heart and encourages him to go after another woman.

I understand that almost every movie requires some suspension of disbelief. …I understand that this movie requires the ultimate suspension of disbelief, and so I’m not even touching on the countless contrived plot devices, or the continual divergence from any semblance of reality and its consequences. However, the few fairy tale episodes mentioned above take real life scenarios and resolve them with the impossible simplicity that everyone so desperately desires.

People old enough to know better aren’t going to watch “Enchanted”. While I think the concept is great and the performances showed some interesting potential, the movie itself is a regurgitation of practically every Disney flick ever made. Unlike many of the kid’s movies released these days, this one makes no attempt to appeal to an older audience. The only people who will be enchanted by this work are children who won’t understand why mommy and daddy can’t see the sparkle in each other’s eyes, or why mommy’s boyfriend disappeared after true love’s kiss.

BASICS

Your Cup O’ Tea:
If you are a friend or family member of the cast and crew of this film, or if you are on heavy medication.

Steer Clear:
If you’re anyone else.

Nothing New Under the Sun:
Style of “Roger Rabbit” and “Space Jam” with unending references to every Disney feature under the sun.

Buy or Rent:
NEITHER. Again, if you’re old enough to appreciate the few and subtle entertainment tidbits of this movie, you’ll be miserable for the rest of it. If you’re looking for a movie for your children, there are plenty of quality features out there that won’t muddy the water of reality.

FEATURES

-Scene Selection

-Subtitles

-Register DVD

-Bloopers:
Approx 2 minutes. Typical amusing mistakes. Missed lines, faulty equipment, etc..,

-Deleted Scenes (With Intro by director Kevin Lima):
6 total. As usual, the animated scenes are mostly storyboards and rough sketches. There are live-action scenes as well, but they are short and relatively uninteresting. Kevin Lima talks like he’s addressing children, which is good, although why a child would be interested in pacing is beyond me.

-Fantasy Comes To Life:
Approx 17 minutes. This is essentially the “making of” portion of the DVD. It’s broken down into three segments, “Happy Working Song”, “That’s How You Know”, and “A Blast at the Ball”. The first segment addresses working with the CGI animals, the crew, and a little bit about the composers/songwriters. The second section deals with all the work and effort that went into shooting the big musical number of the film that takes place in Central Park with a mob of extras. The final bit revisits the process of incorporating CGI into a scene and elaborates on the various aspects of filmmaking. Children may find this interesting, but by now most folks have seen enough green screens and wires from other behind-the-scenes features.
DUH! FACTOR: 9 out of 10

-‘Ever Ever After’ by Carrie Underwood (represented as a musical note):
A music video featuring scenes from the movie.

-Ad for Disney Blu Ray (represented by a silhouette of Mickey’s head):
Approx 1 minute. Telling us how fantastic and new Disney Blu Ray movies will be. Shameless, really.
DUH! FACTOR: 10 out of 10

-Pip’s Predicament:
Approx 5.5 minutes. A short story featuring the chipmunk from the film. It’s animated using pop-up cutouts, not traditional animation.

-Quick Play:
Don’t let this fool you—it won’t get you past the mounds of advertising on the DVD. Actually this feature seems to string all 11 sneak peaks together before starting the movie.

Woulda Been Nice: I would have liked some cast and director interviews so they could explain what drew them to this movie. Perhaps I’m missing some crucial redemptive element.