5Q Movie Review: Black Panther

This time, I am going to do this a little differently and give the questions but not the answers. Yes, I will let you the reader do the work!

OK, now that I drove off all of my readership, I think Black Panther is a good movie that I place in the top tier of modern Marvel Comics movies. I enjoyed it much more than I did the last two Avengers joints.

These are 5 questions the movie makes me ponder. It feels like I was the last person to see this, so why bother attempting a straight review?

Q: Isn't it great that the setting and tone was so distinct from other recent Marvel movies? Shouldn't Marvel mix it up a little more going forward? (OK, that's two, but they're related)

Q: While the movie feels like it is about something and like it considers ideas and principles in a way unlike recent Marvel movies (Captain America: Civil War should have had some amount of depth), would it have been even more provocative by making Killmonger less of a cartoonish villain?

At points in the movie, mainly the beginning and end of Killmonger's arc, there is some sympathy for his character, but in between he goes over the top and lets characters and viewers off the hook a bit. You could argue that some of his ideas are worth considering, but he ultimately is just a selfish super villain with less credibility than, say, Magneto in the recent X-Men movies. I understand why the movie didn't go this direction, but presenting him as a legit  counterpoint to T'Challa would have made a fascinating alternate movie.

Q: In "real life" how would the United Nations react to a high-minded speech about making the world better and leading the right way from a country that determines its leader in part through MMA-style brawls to the death? What would the reaction be if a country of white-skinned people had a succession ritual that involved such a practice? Wouldn't people call it barbaric? Is there a difference if it is put forth as an African "tradition"?

Q: Isn't the idea of rule by monarch kind of outdated in today's world? Wouldn't it be interesting to learn more about  the inner workings of Wakanda and see why intelligent people with such sophisticated technology still go by the old tradition of rule by King? I for one hope we see more of Wakanda in the sequel. I don't really care about how it interacts with the outside world, at least not yet when there is so much more to go with here. And by the way, the notion that the country could keep such secrets hidden for so long strikes me as a thin one, so it's cool that the movie ditches it by the end.

Q: Why in the world would I buy a regular popcorn for $1 less than the large popcorn when the latter is about 3 times as big? (It had been a while since I bought food at a movie theater)

5Q Movie Review: These Three

I enjoyed These Three  (1936, directed by William Wyler and written by Lillian Hellman) on Filmstruck last month. It is not currently streaming there, but it is available on DVD via Warner Archive.

Q: Hey, whatsa big idea writing about something you saw on Filmstruck that isn't on Filmstruck anymore?
A: Well, excuuuuse me! I watched it when I did because it was leaving the service, and I didn't get to this quick enough. However, it shows up on TCM, it is available on DVD through Warner Archive, and it may well return to Filmstruck. I recommend catching it when you can! It stars Joel McCrea, Miriam Hopkins, and Merle "The Pearl" Oberon (OK, that's not her nickname, but I have been watching a lot of Eight Is Enough) in a compelling melodrama about...well, read on.

Q: How does this compare to other adaptations of Hellman's infamous play The Children's Hour?
A: Uh, I can compare them this way: There is this one, which I have seen, and then all the others, which I have not seen. So that's how they compare.

I do know the source material was about lesbianism, and 1936 wasn't ready for that, so we get a love triangle of sorts. Oberon and Hopkins are best friends who open a boarding school after graduating college, and they meet a strapping young doctor (McCrea) who they both admire...only Oberon is the one who gets romantically involved. There is a misunderstanding and a mean (some might day evil) maneuver by Bonita Granville's horrible brat character, and it leads to...SCANDAL!

This film, Wyler's breakthrough as a studio director, exposes the biggest problem facing sensible people in the olden days.

Q: So what was the biggest problem facing sensible people in the olden days?
A: Some might say gossip, some might say rumor, some might say jumping to conclusions, but I say that These Three reveals the menace of...OLD BIDDIES! That's right, the film is loaded with annoying old biddie-ism, from Hopkins' ultra-annoying freeloader of an aunt to Granville's ultra-powerful and ultra-close-minded granddaughter. The performances are fine, but, wow, are those characters irritating. You want to yell at the screen. Granville's malevolent brat is the villain of the piece, but she's just a kid. The old biddies should know better.

Q: How long is the movie?
A: It's about 93 minutes, and I'm glad you asked because it's about 15-20 minutes too long. I don't mean that the pacing is slow or anything. The movie is absorbing for much of its running time, but the last portion of it (pretty much starting with the trial) isn't as satisfying as the rest. Surely the Production Code restrictions had a lot to do with that.

Q: Filmstruck occasionally offers supplemental material for its movies. Did it make available the music video of Heart singing These Three with gauzy clips of the Wilson sisters vamping on stage alternating with shots from the movie?
A: All...All they had up was a brief clip of Wyler's son talking about the movie, and I was...I was happy to have that. Now...I kind of want this.

5Q Movie Review: Godzilla Raids Again (1955)

Note: I saw Godzilla Raids Again on The Criterion Channel/Filmstruck.

Note #2: This post contains major spoilers for the original Godzilla. You can avoid them by skipping the last Q/A.

Q: When this movie came out, were Japanese critics all like, "Oh, great! All they ever make these days are sequels and comic book movies?"

A: The film was a box office success in Japan in 1955, but I can't say for sure this reaction wasn't common. My Japanese is a little rusty, but I did find some reviews saying, "God help us all if this becomes some kind of endless 'shared universe' deal."

According to Wikipedia, though, critical and popular reception to the movie itself was disappointing, with the consensus that it was a rushed sequel.


Q: Is this just a carbon copy of the first movie? IS it a rushed sequel?

A: Not at all a carbon copy! The tone is a little lighter, and most of the humans are different. The director is different, with Motoyoshi Oda replacing Ishiro Honda. I wish I knew why Honda didn't return; I'd like to say he had creative differences with Godzilla, but Honda did return to direct multiple other pictures in the franchise. It's not a great sequel, but it is entertaining enough in its own right, and in one important respect, it actually improves on the original.


Q: So what IS better about this one?

A: The filmmakers realize that while it's fun to see a giant lizard smash houses, trains, and buildings, it's even more funner to see it smash other monsters. Therefore we see Godzilla clash with Anguirus,  who returns later in the series. Godzilla fights dirty, by the way, but it's hard to hate on him for it.


Q: Is there as much subtext in this follow-up?

A: It's more text-text. The nuclear origins of Godzilla and the problems associated with testing are much more explicit. I don't mean that a professor with a tweed jacket speaks into the camera  about them while occasionally puffing on a pipe, but several characters do discuss them more openly than in the previous film.

It's OK to admit it--I'm kind of envisioning that scene with the professor in tweed, too, and how cool it would be.


Q: Hey, how do they explain the sequel, anyway? Wasn't Godzilla taken out by the Oxygen Destroyer in the first movie?

A: He was, and I have to confess that I did not realize this: THIS Godzilla is...a different monster! I always assumed they weaseled out of the original ending or ignored it, but nope, Raids Again is explicit in declaring this is a second monster. It's kind of amazing I was able to focus and get through the movie, really, let alone enjoy it as much as I did, after learning this.

5Q Movie Review: Gah-Gah-Godzilla (1954)

I watched Godzilla on Filmstruck and thought it would be nice to answer some reader questions about the film.

Q: Is this the one with Bryan Cranston, the one with Matthew Broderick, or the one with Godzooky?
A:  Ahem. No, Filmstruck streams the original 1954 film by Ishiro Honda, the one that started all, in addition to the Americanized Ray Burr version that--wait, Godzooky???

OK, now many of you are gonna want to see this clip again now anyway, so here it is embedded for your convenience:

Q: So this is the original, not-watered-down granddaddy of them all? That means there's lots of fun carnage and destruction, right?
A: Well...yeah. But also, if you've never seen the 1954 movie that started it all, you might be surprised at how somber it is. Honda creates and sustains a melancholy atmosphere that makes this a much more thoughtful film than I remembered.

It's still hard not to sing Deep Purple to yourself every now and then. Sorry, that's just the way it is.


Q: Are there political overtones?
A: The context of Godzilla, which was released in the wake of real-life incidents involving atomic testing by the U.S., to say nothing of the actual bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is important. There is also a strong environmental message, but to me the fascinating thread in the story is the debate over the devastating weapon a scientist has developed--the "oxygen destroyer."

It can be used to take out Godzilla--but should it be? What are the consequences of using such a weapon? Is it moral to take out the monster who has been stirred from the ocean depths by human activity? All of these questions play out in credible form over the course of the movie.

Plus you do get to see a giant monster smash stuff.

Q: Are the human characters all disposable and lame?
A: There are some broad notes with the small core of human characters, but they are all effective. Jealousy, sacrifice, honor...all and more play out against the backdrop of the big ol' lizard.  It's surprisingly moving and makes for a great watch. If you haven't seen a Godzilla movie in a while, this is a great place to start. I mean, it's the beginning, so that's kind of obvious, but still.

Q: What would you do with an oxygen destroyer?
A: I wish no harm on any human being, but, as much as I love Filmstruck, maybe we could take one and just kind of wave it in the face (but not use it) of whoever decided to let Warner Instant die a slow death without trying to improve it.

5Q Movie Review: The Post

This semi-regular feature returns with a look at a movie I actually saw in a theater! Hey, it's a big deal for me since the last time I saw a film on the big screen, D.W. Griffith wasn't even problematic.

With the 5Q Movie Review, I try to get the essence of what a movie is about by asking and answering the truly important questions about a film.

Q: Does Meryl Streep turn directly to the camera and say, "Get it, current administration?" and then pause for audience applause?
A: I'm not saying that Streep, who plays former Post publisher Katharine Graham, does do this, but I'm not saying she doesn't. Stick through the ending credits!

Q: Does Tom Hanks play former Post editorial head honcho guy with a rascally twinkle in his eye?
A: He sure does. Unfortunately, I don't think there is one scene of Hanks pecking at a typewriter while holding a pen or a cigar with his teeth. Not one! What a ripoff.

Hanks and Streep are entertaining, and while Streep gets the kudos, we need to salute Hanks, too, because Ben Bradlee was some kind of demigod according to the way people  talk about him.

Q: Is that--is that David Cross along with Bob Odenkirk? Does Ronnie Dobbs make an appearance?
A: I'm aware that this is an unfair question, but I must be honest. As soon as I heard Cross' voice, I chuckled that he was in the film. Odenkirk has "crossed over" in my mind; Cross hasn't. The casting of the movie in general was a little distracting, actually.

No, Ronnie Dobbs isn't in The Post.

Q: What is the history like? Is it accurate?
A: I'm no expert, but many have criticized the movie for lionizing The Washington Post and downplaying the major role played in the release of the Pentagon Papers--perhaps by far the most important role--by The New York Times.  Of course, many of those critics are people who worked for The New York Times.

Q: Are newspapers still the best?
A: Most of the actual newspapers still around are not the best, but newspapers as a thing are still the best, and it's tempting to say that I would trade the Internet to have newspapers around, thriving, and affordable. That would mean the end of this blog, though--an existential dilemma I choose not to ponder.

I am all in favor of Hollywood making a big prestige movie about newspapers every single year.

Overall, I thought the movie was a nice crowd pleaser, but I was disappointed. I am a fan of media history but thought that Steven Spielberg sacrificed some narrative power in order to serve an agenda. I don't say that from a liberal vs. conservative angle, either. I enjoyed The Post, and it made me want to read more about the time period and the events depicted, but I can't picture myself seeing it again.

5Q Movie Review: The Peanuts Movie (2015)

Q: Is this an embarrassment to Peanuts fans everywhere and to the legacy of Charles M. Schulz?
A: No, not at all. I think overall it's a worth extension of the franchise and a nice way to introduce a new generation to the world of Charlie Brown. There are a lot of things in here Schulz wouldn't do, and there are some things I don't really care for, but it's a fun movie. It feels like Peanuts and captures the spirit of the source material--maybe a little too much in some places.

Q: How does the animation style work for Charlie and the gang?
A: Surprisingly well. It takes some getting used to at the beginning, but soon the Blue Sky CG animation style blends in a lot better than I expected. The character designs are solid. There are a few new angles and perspectives, like the overhead shot of the whole neighborhood early on, that open up this world in a pleasant way. We still don't see grownups or anything, though, so it's not that radical an approach.

Q: Is the story big enough to justify a feature film?
A: Well, I don't think Peanuts necessarily needs nor should even have a "big" plot for its own sake. In this case there isn't much of a story, which makes the film play a little long. Charlie spends much of the film pining for the little red-haired girl who moves into the neighborhood and joins his class. There are some vignettes and assorted bits here and there, but that's pretty much the deal: Charlie works up the courage to talk to her.

Even the older Peanuts features made when Schulz was still alive and the strip was thriving feel a little padded. I think these characters are better suited for the half-hour TV special format. Even at 80 minutes or so, "The Peanuts Movie" seems just a tad long.  Numerous fantasy sequences with Snoopy flying his "Sopwith Camel as a World War I flying ace don't work and add to that feeling. I know similar sequences in the "Great Pumpkin" special make up a seminal part of the Peanuts world, but a little of it goes a long way, then as now. There is some interesting animation in these segments, reminiscent of how the old movies and specials would use Snoopy to introduce some funkier work, but there's just too much.

One great thing about the film that may be related to its feature film status: Just about everyone gets some kind of moment. Many characters are neglected in the specials, but here you actually see just about everyone get at least a line or two of dialogue. I was especially pleased to see long-absent Violet and Patty (the non-Peppermint variety) get decent representation.

Q: Is it more geared to current adult fans or to youngsters?
A: My small children both enjoyed the movie, with my youngest laughing a lot more. He responded strongly to the physical humor.  It's a fine movie for kids, but I question the rewatch value.  As humorous and charming as it is, it's not something I feel I need to see again anytime soon, and I suspect kids will not want to put this on endless loop as they have other recent animated hits.

Q: What do you mean that it follows the source material "a little too much"?
A: Often, "The Peanuts Movie" runs through some of the old greatest hits rather than coming up with new situations and gags for the characters. I'm not even talking about taking dialogue directly from the original comic strips--the old specials did this all the time--but the film recycles moments and shots from those specials. It sounds weird to use the term "fan service" with regards to Peanuts, but there's way too much of it here.

However, there are some differences here and there. For example. this story makes the red-haired girl a visible character who talks, as opposed to just an offscreen (or off-panel) unattainable fantasy. Charlie gets some actual moments of triumph. Snoopy actually comes off much better than he does in many of the specials and the later comic strips: self-absorbed, perhaps, but all in all a loyal friend and eager assistant to Charlie.

"The Peanuts Movie" is a solid 3-out-of-4-star kind of movie, a funny, heartwarming picture for the whole family. I support trying to keep the franchise viable. I hope its success encourages the creators to go in a more ambitious direction next time, moving away from recycled material and trying to do something that will more fully support motion-picture length. That said, I would be all in favor of this team creating occasional half-hour televised specials.

5Q Movie Review: Ant-Man (2015)

Q: Ant-Man? Why would Marvel spend valuable time and resources on a hero like Ant-Man? I mean, remember the superhero sketch on the original "SNL" when Dan Aykroyd as Flash said, after hearing an explanation of Ant-Man's powers, "Check this guy out. He's got the strength of a human!" Then he pretends to be afraid and says, "Every molecule is quivering!"

A: Let's just say the filmmakers are well aware of that moment!

As for the character, he is kind of cool. His shrinking power brings something new to the Marvel movies, and his interaction with little robot ants looks good. They can't all be super strong or shoot lasers out of their butts.

Q: Wasn't Hank Pym the original Ant-Man? Why did they make him an old dude and go with the newer one (Scott Lang) for the movie?

A: I'm the wrong guy to ask about current incarnations of all these characters, but I will say that while, yes, Hank Pym was a founding Avenger, the current movie group has enough super geniuses. It's refreshing to see a hero who is not one.

Oh, Hank Pym is still a super genius, but he's not the one suiting up. Michael Douglas' Pym guides Paul Rudd's Scott Lang, and it's an interesting dynamic, something a little different. Since they already have this Avengers established, it made sense to go a different direction with Pym. Some Pym/Stark banter down the road will be amusing.

Q: How does this fit in with the other Marvel movies?

A: It references the Avengers, but other than a clumsy post-credits segment setting up another Marvel movie, it feels separate from them in a good way. In fact, Ant-Man tries to reach out to the Avengers in the narrative, but he meets Falcon. I love Falcon and am thrilled that he's a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe or whatever, but he's a B-lister, and the Avengers portions of this movie make it feel like a second-tier movie.

And you know what?  I'm fine with that. There should be room for some of these solo movies with lesser-known heroes.

Q: Does this have a nice juicy villain for Ant-Man?

A: Sadly, no. There are some oily corporate types who are easy to root against, but while Corey Stoll  is skilled at playing an a-hole, he's not really a good super villain. Perhaps the idea was that Any-Man is sort of an anti-hero and that the other elements of the story would make up for the lack of a decent foe. In some respects, they do, but this is perhaps the movie's biggest weakness.

Q: How excited are you for the sequel?

A: The superhero movie docket is getting pretty full, but as long as the films are good, that's not my problem. "Ant-Man" is a solid movie, not one that makes me overly anxious for a follow-up, but one plenty good enough to make me want to see it when it does come out. I felt on some level we weren't supposed to like it because it was directed by Peyton Reed and not the original guy, the much hipper Edgar Wright, but Ant-Man delivers. Rudd and Douglas are charming, and their dynamic has a lot of potential that can be explored in the future. I'm less enthused about Evangeline Lilly's character, but perhaps the sequel will make her more interesting.

5Q Movie Review: Draft Day (2014)

Q: This movie features the cooperation of the NFL in the form of real team names and logos, appearances by NFL Network personalities, and even a role for Commissioner Roger Goodell as himself. Is this an authentic look at the annual NFL player draft?
A: No! The entire scenario that unfolds in "Draft Day," involving multiple last-minute trades of high draft picks, Costner's general manager making rash decisions without involving anyone in his organization, etc., is laughable. The story strains credibility at the beginning, then becomes increasingly ludicrous.

Q: Do you have to be a football fan to enjoy "Draft Day"?
A: It's hard for me to judge how a non-fan would react to it, but I think it helps to know how the NFL Draft really works, not because it enhances your appreciation of the movie, but because it lets you enjoy how bad it is. A mediocre film becomes a true howler.

The story centers on the pursuit of a franchise QB named Bo Callahan. Costner makes a reckless move to get the number one pick so he can get Callahan, THEN decides he needs to research the player. This is on the day of the draft, mind you. Then he changes his mind and starts making more reckless trades, and THEN the movie contorts itself so that the team he originally traded with has to reverse its position for no reason, all so that Costner's GM (who is compared to Joe Montana) can be lauded as some sort of genius. In real life, the guy would be pilloried for not understanding the process, even if he somehow were able to do everything he does in this story.

Q: Is Kevin Costner at least credible as the Cleveland Browns general manager?
A: The stuff he does is ridiculous, but Costner in a sports movie delivers just about every time. It's a good thing because while "Draft Day" half-heartedly tries to weave in threads about his complicated relationship with Jennifer Garner's salary cap guru and with his mother and late father, there isn't much else going on here. The focus is on the machinations of the draft, and there is little compelling about any character in the film, Costner included.

Q: What about the rest of the cast?
A: It seems like a waste to cast Denis Leary as a head coach but not give him a chance to do a lengthy rant--at the team, at Costner, at the guy who does research for the media guide, anybody. He just kinds of bitches about things the whole time until he suddenly does a 180 and embraces Costner's character like he's Ron Wolf.

Jennifer Garner doesn't have much to do, but then again, neither does anyone else. It's kind of nice to see Rosanna Arquette again for a few minutes. I assume someone owed Sean Combs a favor and that's why he has a role as Bo Callhan's agent. I would have rather seen more of Terry Crews, who plays a different agent.

There's a small taste of "Veep" with Kevin Dunn and Timothy Simons, plus Tom Welling in a small role. I have to admit I didn't recognize Welling. Frank Langella and Ellen Burstyn do decent work as (basically) a-holes: the a-hole team owner and Costner's a-hole mother.

There are a lot of other recognizable faces, too, plus a bevy of ESPN and pro football cameos, but none stands out. It's a very Costner-centric movie.

Q: What should Costner's next sports movie be?
A: Even if I don't like the movies, there's something about Costner in a sports flick that's just so easy to watch. I want to say him play a fictionalized version of Vince McMahon in a period piece about 1980s professional wrestling.

How about a story with Costner as a controversial former tennis pro who sees a chance for redemption in training a rising superstar? We don't  get enough tennis movies.

5Q Movie Review: "The Flintstones & WWE: Stone Age Smackdown"

Q: Is this just for kids, or can grown-ups enjoy it, too?
A: Well, I'm a grown-up--more or less--and I enjoyed it! I haven't shared it with my kids yet, but I think the question may be more, "Will kids enjoy it as much as the grown-ups?" Sadly, the Flintstones may not be relevant to today's youth. I do realize it is partly my generation's responsibility to rectify that situation. With that in mind, if my kids don't like it, then I'll show them the classic episodes, and by cracky, they'll like those if they know what's good for them.

It's entirely appropriate for kids, at least, though there are some PG elements like some cartoony violence, Fred drooling over the animated equivalents of the Bella Twins, and Fred drooling over Wilma showing off a new bikini (Good Lord, I hope that last statement doesn't actually sell more copies of the DVD). Also, a few touches like a character meant as a Phil Silvers homage will make the adults smile and go over the kiddies' heads...unless their folks are doing the right thing and showing them Phil Silvers' work  as part of a healthy balanced television diet.

Q: Does it FEEL like the Flintstones?
A: It feels enough like the classic version of the show to me. I give the franchise a little slack here; after all, there was not only the original prime-time series, but there were the Fruity Pebbles ads, the Fred and Barney Comedy Hour, and all kinds of revivals. "Stone Age Smackdown" fits in nicely with all of these versions, and it does capture the spirit of the one that started it all. We get names like John Cenastone, animals performing mechanical tasks, and the modern streamlined animation manages to make Bedrock look fine. It's not like Hanna Barbera's television department was known for its lush visual masterpieces, anyway.

The voice work has varying success. I thought Wilma and Betty were fine, but Barney was off to me. Again, even Mel Blanc used several voices as Barney in the original run, so there's not necessarily one sound the character "should" have, but I didn't care for this portrayal, which seemed a little closer to Blanc's early higher version that the later one that I consider MY classic one. As Mr. Slate, John O'Hurley doesn't do anything wrong, but his voice and persona are too established, and it's distracting.

As Fred, though, Jeff Bergman is outstanding, summoning the original flavor of Alan Reed's portrayal. He doesn't just do an imitation, but does subtle things with the way he does the character. This more than any one thing makes this movie "feel" like the Flintstones.

Q: Does it FEEL like the WWE?
A: Let me put it this way: Fred actually uses the term "sports entertainment" at one point, and, yes, even in a cartoon it irritates me to see Vince McMahon's corporate buzzword replace the word "wrestling." The in-ring action itself is tame and nowhere near as exciting as you'll see on the average WWE pay per view, but it gets the job done.

Fred is an amateurish promoter, but he does have some good instincts. I was stunned to see "Vince McMagma," in this story, as a businessman who basically takes Fred's idea for "sports entertainment" and is inspired to run with it. This has to be the only time Vince McMahon has ever not taken credit for inventing modern wrestling, and it's stunning to see even in this format!

The weirdest thing here is that on the "heel" side of the WWE guest list, we only get Mark Henry and CM Punk. Punk is no longer with the country, and Henry was a bigger deal when this was produced but doesn't have much to do here. Punk is fun as the bullying villain of the story, but it would have been nice to see someone else on that side of things to balance John Cena, Undertaker (semi-retired), and Rey Mysterio (also no longer with WWE). The Bella Twins have heelish interactions with Wilma and Betty (I hope THAT doesn't sell a few DVDs), but they don't really wrestle.

The characterizations are fine, though, with the real-life wrestlers bringing exactly what you would want/expect them to bring. I really enjoyed Vince McMahon as Vince McMagma, and I thought he was underutilized.

Q: How in the world do they manage a WWE/Flintstones crossover? Time Travel?
A: I always welcome time travel in cartoons, but in this case, it's not really John Cena and CM Punk interacting with the Flintstones. It's John Cenastone and CM Punkrock. They and the other characters just happen to remind us of current WWE performers.

Fred and Barney are running a charity scam--uh, a charity event enabling people to box with Hoppy, and once CM Punkrock starts beating up the poor hopparoo, owner Barney comes to his rescue, things get physical in the ring, and things go from there. Betty isn't happy about Barney getting in the ring, but Fred sees dollar signs and promotes a wrestling event featuring friends like new co-worker Cenastone and people like The Undertaker. Yes, his character is so protected, he doesn't even get a stone-aged name makeover.

Q: So, bottom line, is it worth it?
A: I laughed out loud several times and enjoyed this a lot more than I thought I would, but I'm in the target audience that would be open to this kind of stunt. I think fans of Flintstones AND modern-day WWE will love this, but they should look for a deal. The feature is only about 50 minutes long. I haven't seen the Scooby-Doo/WWE crossover movie (though after seeing how good this one is, I want to do so), but that one is long enough to be a legit animated feature.

The DVD is filled out with two classic TV episodes--one wrestling-themed, the other baseball-themed. I'm not sure why they include the latter. Perhaps an episode with Wilma's mother-in-law would be more appropriate; she's a bigger heel then even CM Punkrock at his nastiest. It's nice Warner Brothers added these, but the DVD still feels a tad slight.

Still, "Stone Age Smackdown" is a lot of fun, providing family-friendly entertainment in the vein of the original series and adding elements of modern-day WWE-style pro wrestling. If that sounds appealing, you ought to give it a shot.

5Q Movie Review: Frozen

Q: Why did it take so long for Disney to adapt the Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale "The Snow Queen"?
A: Well, the story does seem a tad thin, but that hasn't stopped them before. I mean, it's really kind of surprising in retrospect that a Princess-centric company didn't seize on this one years ago. Apparently Disney DID work on it at various times, but it wasn't until they decided to turn the fairly dark tale into one centering on a pair of sisters that they really got it going. I'm sure they're glad they did.

Q: Wow, this has made umpteen billions of dollars worldwide! Is it really that good?
A: Yes, it is! As I said, the story is a little meager, but I think it's one of the better Disney efforts of recent years, appropriate for children and adults alike. But if you have kids, wow, you have to give them a chance to see this. All who see this movie love this movie. Those same children are somehow able to memorize the entire film after only one viewing.

As late as 2013, children loved all the usual things children have loved throughout history: jacks, licorice whips, paste. But the world has changed, and I can report with scientific certainty that kids only love "Frozen" now.

Q: Will I ever get the songs out of my head?
A: It'll take a few weeks. The songs are functional but also catchy and well performed. But I'll warn you that while you might have a fighting chance to eliminate the tunes from your brain, your kids will be goners--not that they care.

Recently, there were two times in a row I picked up my younger child from day care and found him and his friends dancing and singing along to the soundtrack. I mean, these kids knew all the words, the gestures, everything. It was almost unsettling, like it was some kind of bizarre battle cry as a prelude to overthrowing us grown-ups and forming a Frozen Kingdom ruled by toddlers.

Q: Is Olaf as annoying as he seems?
A: I worried about him, too. Chatty snowman sidekick, seemingly there just for comic relief--could have been a real pain. But to the contrary, he's charming and is used well here, providing some humor with his naivete but also helping Anna, Elsa, and Kristoff and becoming a worthy character in his own right.

Q: OK, OK, those few of us who haven't seen it yet will try to see it. Is the DVD a good value?
A: Unfortunately, Disney seems to have gotten into the habit of holding back on extras for future special edition reissues. It's disappointing there isn't more supplemental material for what has become a phenomenon and an essential part of Disney culture.

HOWEVER...head to the bonus material and find the cartoon short titled "Get a Horse." I didn't see "Frozen" in its theatrical return, so when this hit video, I had forgotten all about this new Mickey Mouse 'toon that played before the feature. It combines elements both old and new in creating a hilarious, action-packed (if anything it's almost too frenetic for its own good) tribute to the character's history. I would say it's worth the price of the disc alone because it is that good, but who am I kidding? There's no way I would pay full DVD price for a 7-minute cartoon. In fact, I didn't even buy THIS DVD. But let's just say it's a really nice treat that adds value to the "Frozen" package and will itself demand multiple viewings.

5 Q Movie Review: Evocateur: The Morton Downey Jr. Movie

Q: Do you have to be a fan of The Morton Downey Jr. Show" to enjoy this movie?

A: I don't believe so, but if you did watch the show, you will absolutely love this. If Mort drove you crazy back in the day, you still might appreciate the behind the scenes on the guy and the short-lived phenomenon that was his confrontational WOR tri-state area (then syndicated nationally) talk show. If you liked Mort then, well...(See #4)

Q: Do we get the real story on Mort's persona and the "Skniheads attacked me" incident?

A: You don't exactly get footage of the late Downey himself saying, "Yeah, it was all an act, and I made up the Skinhead attack for publicity," but there are enough key interviews with, say, show producers, that reveal that stuff. One of Mort's oldest friends and songwriting partner confirms the hoax thing, and the movie doesn't necessarily outright say the political slant on the show was whatever would get ratings, but it does establish that the host was basically doing a character. I'm not sure the fact that Downey was a big friend and follower of Ted Kennedy in the sixties is as important or as revelatory as the documentary seems to think it is, but there is a lot of evidence to that as well, most courtesy of a former Kennedy aide who knew Mort ("Sean"back then) back in the day. The movie isn't a hatchet job, though, and it presents a balanced, insightful look at a character who went way over the top. Some of the cartoon segments are a little over the top, too.

Q: Wait, is there animation in this?

A: There is, and in fact, the animated sequence at the beginning made me think, "Uh-oh..." I feared that "style" would overwhelm substance in this documentary. To the contrary, stylistic flourishes like the cartoon segments enhance the story. More conventional documentary aspects like old footage and talking heads are also used well. Hey, anyone who watched WOR 9 or any New York TV  in the eighties will enjoy appearances by the likes of Alan Dershowitz, Al Sharpton, Richard Bey, Chris Elliott...

Wait, Chris Elliott? Yep, he's a talking head here, which alone is almost enough to recommend the documentary.

Q: So does the movie make you want to see some old episodes?

A: I don't know. Part of me does want to dig up some of the shows and see them again, but another part of me thinks, "How did I get into this stuff in the first place?" The documentary shows just enough to get a real taste of what the show was like, and I do want to see an episode or two, but I don't think I'd shell out for a bootleg set of multiple episodes. If someone wants to put them up on YouTube, I won't complain! The other thing to remember, and a point that "Evocateur" makes clear, is that even in the show's heyday, it burned out really, really fast.

Q: Most importantly, do we get to hear any of "Hey There, Mr. Dealer"?

A: Yes! Hey, folks, remember when an album called "Morton Downey Jr. Sings" came out and MTV actually played a music video from it? Well, if you don't, you get some snippets here. Sadly, I can't find the whole video of "Hey There, Mr. Dealer" online, and we only see a bit of it here. You have to see it, though. We just don't get enough reactionary folk rock anymore. I mean, singing about the evils of drugs doesn't make you a right-wing nut, but I don't recall Peter, Paul,. and Mary crooning, "hey there, Mr. Dealer, you drug-pushing son of a bitch, messing up the minds of the kids of America, just to make a fat-ass rich"

Be thankful we don't hear "Zip It," though,

5Q Movie Review: Dredd (2012)

Yes, the 5Q Movie Review returns! I do see a movie that's less than 20 years old now and then, and I enjoy writing about it in this format. Recently I gambled a buck or so at a Redbox kiosk and went home with "Dredd."

Q: Is this a reboot of the Sly Stallone version?
A: Kind of, but it's been long enough that I say, let's not even mention that version, OK? Last year Cinemax was running it frequently, so I thought I'd revisit it despite the palpable disappointment my father and I felt seeing it in that original theatrical run.

I think I lasted about 10 minutes. I had forgotten just how much Rob Schneider there was in "Dredd." I mean, it's one thing to have a character be the audience's "entree into the setting," but I was seeing tons of Schneider and no Judge Dredd, so I bailed.

Uh, but, yeah, as I was saying, let's not even mention that one.

Q: Does it do justice (heh heh) to the comic books?
A: Unlike that previous version--oops, there I go mentioning it again--it does. I haven't read any Judge Dredd comics in years, but from what I remember, yeah, this is pretty good. Karl Urban does a great job as the titular lawman, a cop who also serves as judge, jury, and executioner in the dystopic Mega City One. Unlike in certain other adaptations, Urban doesn't take off his helmet so we can admire his movie star face. He stays true to his print identity.

Psychic female judge Anderson (Olivia Thirlby) is his partner in this story, and one clever move the filmmakers do is to make her a rookie so that SHE is her accessible point into the world...not Rob Schneider. And Judge Anderson kicks ass. Thirlby is physically credible in this dynamic action role but also pulls off a blend of toughness and relative innocence that creates a complex character who serves as a welcome contrast to the jaded, laconic Dredd.

Q: Didn't this bomb at the box office? Is it really worth seeing?
A: I've read that it has found new life on video. Perhaps people just didn't know much about the Judge Dredd character. After all, he's a British phenomenon, and casual comic book fans over here have no idea what he's about. I hope this is doing well on DVD because while I don't think it'll ever make a blockbuster summer popcorn event, it could easily sustain a franchise. This movie pretty much shows Dredd and Anderson dealing with a single city block, but there are many elements from the comics on which to draw.

Q: Is it as dark as other recent comic book movies?
A: It has literal darkness, and Mega City One is a pretty depressing sight. The story shows criminality, gang activity, and drug use run amok, and the fascist approach to law enforcement may be quite grim indeed even to viewers who acknowledge that it looks...well, necessary. Yet the movie has a sense of humor, not in the sense of loading up the dialogue with forced wisecracks, but in the sense of being a fun ride.

The villain, gang leader/drug dealer, Ma-Ma, is played with a smile (literally, and it's a wicked one) by Lena Headey. She has enough charisma to pull it off, and she is pretty damn evil, but...come on, she's named Ma-Ma.

Q: Was it worth your buck?
A: I must confess it's actually more like $1.20, but I had a coupon code that made it closer to 70 cents. Hell, yeah, it was worth that. I may not have felt I got bang for my buck had I paid to see "Dredd" at a cineplex on a Saturday night, but as a video rental, it was a fantastic viewing experience. It's really a cool B-movie, and I don't mean that in a bad way. It's filled with action, and while there are character moments, no time is wasted on explaining the back story of Dredd. There are hints of deeper elements to his character, but there isn't a flashback scene to explain his origin and "fill us in." And we don't need it. We learn quickly who he is and what we need to know. Anderson's back story is more explicit, but it is revealed in layers that tie into the story and her situation.

"Dredd" is a lot of fun, and I hope there is a sequel or two. As long as they can keep Urban, and maybe keep the budget down, maybe they can crank these out and make enough money to keep everyone happy while drawing on the long tradition of the British comics that spawned this character. Future installments could explore the sociopolitical elements of the Dredd universe, but I was fine with this action-centered, no frills flick.

5 Q Movie Review: The Fighter

Q: OK, this is a working class Boston movie, so we gotta know: Accents?
A: Not as prominent as in "The Town," which may be a good or a bad thing. People in this movie are too busy being drunk, stoned, or beaten in one form or another to worry about their hard "r's". Much like "The Town," though, I held this DVD way too long from Netflix. Did I regret renting it? No. Did I regret keeping it two months? Yep.

Q: Which one is "The Fighter," Mark Wahlberg or Christian Bale?
A: It's ostenisbly the life story of Irish Micky Ward, played by Wahlberg, but Bale, mesmerizing as his drug-addicted brother, runs away with the movie, aided by a screenplay that emphasizes Ward's family members as much as it does Ward himself. It's no wonder poor Wahlberg was the only major castmember not nominated for an Oscar.

Q: Does this movie pack a...punch? Are the boxing scenes credible?
A: Oh, you're clever, you. Actually, the movie, while well acted and compelling, feels more like a split decision or maybe even a technical draw at the end. The boxing itself is second fiddle to the out-of-the ring battles, which is the point, but still, Ward's most famous bouts aren't even portrayed, but rather addressed with a brief title card at the end.

Q: Who is the most fearsome force in boxing history?
A: Forget Mike Tyson. Forget Sonny Liston (OK, maybe a lot of people forgot him after the Ali fights). The most intimidating individual in the long history of the sweet science, if this movie
is any barometer, is Micky Ward's mom. The woman passed away recently, and I don't want to speak ill of the departed, but, lordy, Melissa Leo's portrayal of her is so over the top she goes all the way around and starts coming into the movie from the bottom.

Q: Does this serve as a good cautionary tale against the perils of drug use?
A: Uh, well, I suppose so, in the sense that Christian Bale's Dicky Eklund character becomes a fractured mess due to his crack addiction. But at least he has an excuse. The movie actually makes a strong case for drinking yourself blotto every night if you live with this family, especially considering the crazy broads in the house.

The first sight of Jack McGee, the beloved first station chief from "Rescue Me," he's staggering around a bar and generally making an ass out of himself. However, as the story progresses, he becomes one of the more sympathetic characters in it, and you start to wonder why he doesn't drink more. So nay on drugs, yay on booze is the message I take from this.

5Q Movie Review: "The Town" (2010)--It IS "The Town"

Q: Wait a minute, you're saying "The Town" is in fact "The Town"?
A: Yep, unlike "2012," the motion picture known as "The Town" actually IS "The Town." You can understand, then, my sense of satisfaction when I sat down to watch "The Town" and accomplished that goal. And, hey, that the movie is really good only helped the cause!

In fact, you could say "the Town" is many other movies, or at least reminiscent of many other movies. I don't know that there is one element in the film that doesn't seem borrowed from or akin to something from another crime movie. But it's executed so well that I don't care.

Q: Is it time to take Ben Affleck seriously as a filmmaker?
A: "Gone Baby Gone" was enough to achieve that in my book, but now the guy's 2 for 2 as a director, and his output is such a potent combo of tense crime dramas that he earns a pass from me. I'll go see whatever he does next. He can stay in the gritty Boston crime drama genre, too. That may be PAH for the course for him, but it's not like we have enough good movies around that we have to ask the guy to "stretch" or some garbage like that.

Q: How are the Boston accents?
A: Prominent enough to make me try to echo them, thereby irritating Mrs. Shark as we watched the DVD; credible enough to make me stop doing it about 15 minutes in.

Q: Who's the bigger (and better) badass, Jeremy Renner or Pete Poslethwaite?
A: Despite giving up a number of years on the younger Renner, the great Double P, who appears nearly skeletal here and was struggling with the cancer that took his life last year, turns in a
convincing, menacing performance. Nothing against Renner, who is OK as a loose cannon type, but Postlethwaite's quiet, sinister presence gives the movie a big infusion of danger and leaves a memorable impression that is all the more remarkable considering his emaciated physical appearance.

Q: Hey, if "The Town" is so great, why did it fail to make the list of TEN whole movies nominated for a Best Picture Oscar?
A: Simple, really: The Academy voters are a bunch of poopybutts.

You know, we were just explaining to our little girl why it's not nice to use that word, one she learned from a little ruffian at her school, and I'm setting a bad example here, but she doesn't read this blog, and besides, sometimes there just isn't a more appropriate word than "poopybutt."

5Q Movie Review: Toy Story 3

Q: OK, give it up: Did it make you cry?
A: Well, I may have had something in my eye, but--oh, OK, maybe I didn't blubber, but like many other Pixar films, this one had me going full-on Jack Paar with the misty eyes. I have no idea how this company does it, apart from the effective storytelling, the sharp characterization, and the evocative music.

Q: Is third installment as good as the first two?
A: It's been a long time since I've seen either "1" or "2" in its entirety, but for now I have to say...yes, almost as good. You can't get the joy of discovery from a second sequel, of course, but you can and do get another fine movie that utilizes the love you have of the characters. Maybe "3" is a notch below those two, but it more than justifies itself, and that alone is an achievement in this era of seemingly automatic sequelization.

Q: Are the new characters as enjoyable as some of the missing ones?
A: Not to be disrespectful, but I think the franchise will survive the loss of Bo Peep. Ned Beatty does an awesome job as Lots-o-huggin' Bear, a toy whose "arc" might be guessable to some but still contains some interesting angles and moves. Then there is Michael Keaton having a blast as Ken. The character is how you might expect a Ken doll to be in a "Toy Story" movie but still with some surprises, and it's such a great performance you never think that the filmmakers are just playing into old Ken/Barbie jokes.

Q: Would you see a fourth?
A: I was skeptical of the potential of a third, but if Pixar can come up with another great concept, I'll go see it. That said, "Toy Story 3" offers a beautiful sense of both closure and new beginnings, and it would serve as a perfect end chapter for a trilogy. I'm tempted to say it "should" serve as a perfect end chapter, but I'm not gonna deny them if they think they can do it again.

Q: Can Pixar do anything wrong in your eyes? And when are you gonna go see another movie in a theater, you old man?
A: Hey, I'll get around to seeing "Inception"...maybe. I can't get to dozens of flicks a year anymore. As for Pixar, well, I finally saw "Wall-E" recently and thought it was just OK. But when the studio keeps producing outstanding movies, I like to keep praising 'em. "Toy Story 3" has it all: laughs, emotions, a thoughtful storyline, accessible ideas to chew on, and just a heckuva lot of fun. And don't underestimate the adventure aspect of the movie: One sequence in particular in which the characters face impending doom is so brilliant in its execution it puts you on the edge of your seat. I know that's a cliche, but I'm telling you, I was literally sitting on the edge of my seat.

So "Toy Story 3" is another winner, and as someone who may only get to see one movie with his wife in a theater this year, I can say if this is it, I picked well.

5Q Movie Review: In the Loop

Q: Hey, this is based on a TV show? So it's just a puffed-up version of a Britcom?
A: "In the Loop" is a loose adaptation of a brilliant Britcom called 'The Thick of It," one shot "Office"-style in documentary format but with a bureaucratic setting. This movie similarly skewers politics and government, and it does so very well. I'm really complimenting it when I say it does the TV series justice.

Q: The previews made this look like a bunch of people standing around and talking. Is that what we have here?
A: Well...yeah, but sometimes they're walking! Hey, just because the film is jam-packed with dialogue about the process of going to war as opposed to scenes of actual war doesn't mean it's not exciting. The characters are playing out their own vicious dramas and mind games, but they happen to be doing it with words--that is, insults, leaks, innuendos, etc. Sure, "Loop" is talky, but it's great talk delivered by fine performers.

Q: Does the Americanized setting hinder or hurt this?
A: "Loop" gets luminaries like James Gandolfini (as a general) and David Rasche (hilarious as a right-wing Assistant Secretary of State) by focusing on the Anglo-American relationship, satirizing the way the US and Britain entered the Iraq War together. It gets many of the Brits physically over here in a rather contrived manner, but who cares? Overall, it stays faithful to the spirit of "The Thick of It," and the Americanization of the setting expands the scope and helps sustain a feature-length story.

Q: What's the deal with that scary guy who looks to be yelling at everybody?
A: That's the great Peter Capaldi as the Prime Minister's pit bull, Malcolm Tucker. I don't even remember his actual title, but his job is basically yelling and swearing at everybody to make sure they stick to the official game plan. Capaldi reprises his role from the TV show and is mesmerizing every single moment he's on screen. This is a movie crammed with hilarious dialogue, but it would be a must-see if only to enjoy the various ways Malcolm incorporates the f-word into his sharp rants and putdowns.

Q: What if we're fatigued by or never wanted to see Iraq War movies? Is this still worth checking out?
A: It's not like this takes you into the desert in Humvees. It's a sophisticated political satire, fast-moving and funny as hell. It doesn't deal with war itself so much as the machinations and maneuvering that lead to it. I'll admit this would have been a tad fresher 3 or 4 years ago, but if you're at all interested in a movie that exposes the idiocy of politics and the self-serving nature of its participants, then this is for you, "Iraq fatigue" or no.

5Q Movie Review: Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths

Q: Ooh, the word "Crisis" means this is full of Earth 2, the Justice Society of America, Monitors, and serves as an adaptation of the comic series "Crisis on Infinite Earths," "Identity Crisis," and/or "Infinite Crisis," right?
A: Uh, no. It does offer parallel worlds, a key concept in the DC Comics universe which is prominent in many of its biggest events. But this direct-to-video animated feature focuses on a set of villains called the Crime Syndicate, composed of alternate versions of the flagship DC superheroes. So don't be disappointed that this story doesn't adapt those other stories or feature the JSA. Or be disappointed (like I was), but just don't be surprised.

Q: If I didn't understand a word of that first question except "right," am I going to be totally lost watching this?
A: No, or at least not any more so than the rest of us. There are a good number of plot holes and ideas and elements that are wild even by comic book standards, but the screenplay explains enough so that you can follow along without problem as long as you don't have a Crisis of Disbelief. And this is in many ways a "Justice League" cartoon, though not nearly as good as the excellent, much missed TV series. Supes, Bats, Flash, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter, and a roster of guest stars fight bad guys. What more do you need to know?

Q: How does this stack up to recent DC Animated features?
A: As I said, the story strains credibility, but not as much as the recent "Superman/Batman Public Enemies." This one also offers some great fight scenes, though not quite as many, and many are quite well designed, though Green Lantern looks like a chump when his ring-wielding counterpart conceives different shapes but GL keeps making big green fists to punch stuff. Speaking of GL, "Crisis" is also an improvement of "First Flight," but not up to the level of "Wonder Woman" or "New Frontier." In short, comic book fans and Justice League fans should enjoy this if they can get past the casting.

Q: Does the voice casting work?
A: Most of it is fine, but, oh, how some of it makes you wish they just used the usual suspects from the TV show. Woods is great, and Gina Torres does good work, too, as his partner (and I DO mean partner--RROWR!). Chris Noth is effective as a different kind of Lex Luthor. But the JLA is only as good as its big guns, and Mark Harmon is all wrong as Superman.

Even more distracting and off-putting, though--and that's saying something--is William Baldwin as Batman. Calling yourself "William" does not in and of itself confer screen presence. No matter what kind of solutions Batman comes up with against the villains, no matter how ingenious his tactics, as soon as I hear that voice, this Caped Crusader's IQ seems to plummet.

Q: The DVD is loaded with extras, right? Are they worthwhile?
A: Well, I hear there's a cool animated short featuring the Spectre, a documentary, some "Justice League" episodes, and a few live-action superhero pilots. I hear 'em, but I don't see 'em, because Netflix isn't offering the bonus disc despite bowing down to almighty Warner Brothers and agreeing to delay renting this movie for a month. And you know my motto: If I can't rent it, I ain't buyin' it, neither. Maybe I should add a "nohow" in there somewhere, but you get my drift.

5Q Movie Review: (500) Days of Summer

Q: This movie is completely different from any romantic comedy that ever came before it, right?I mean, it's indie, fresh, and daring, correct?

A: Not quite. Despite the rep and the indie cred, take away the time-fracturing gimmick, and this is in many ways--probably most ways--a fairly conventional romantic comedy. It's well done, but some of the quirkier aspects of Tom and Summer's relationship are counteracted by some remarkably square sitcomesque punchlines and situations.

Q: Wait a minute, the lead character's NAME is Summer? That and the parentheses in the title makes me worry--is this movie too cutesy for its own good?

A: I worried myself, but don't let the 500 Days of Summer (heh heh) thing get to you. Despite some of its excesses in quirk--like breaking the wall and staging a big musical number complete with an animated bluebird--there is ultimately real feeling in this movie. Simply put, it gets you and stays there. It's funny, sad, moving, and the ending is a little cutesy but feels earned and appropriate.

Q: Isn't there a big time-distorting gimmick at the center of this one? Is it effective or just confusing?

A: Yes, instead of a straight chronological narrative of this relationship between two young lovers, we see a day here, then a day many days ahead, then a day just after the beginning, etc. The jumping around could be distracting or could be used to hide a weaker story, but it does work here. Instead of feeling like a cheap gimmick, it reveals some real emotional truths as we, for example, see a glimpse of one day, then come back and see more of it after learning more about the two characters. It's to director Marc Webb's credit that the gimmick is indeed effective.

Q: What about the leads? DO Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel have good chemistry?

A: JGL is excellent in this one. He's impressed me with some of his other roles lately, and here he does a good job of making a guy sympathetic even though at times he's kind of, well, PA-thetic. He is a romantic searching for a soulmate, and that's fine, but the way he moons over Deschanel is a little much, even if you DO find her more charming than I do. I didn't find all her so special, frankly. Now, the way I react to these characters is, of course, in large part due to the screenplay, and Deschanel in particular is hamstrung somewhat by a script that makes her--hey, her's that part I mentioned earlier about something that makes this romantic comedy unique.

Q: OK, I'll bite. What IS so unique about this romantic comedy?

A: There may be some mild SPOILAGE here, so look out.

OK, one thing I find interesting about "(500) Days" is that the female half of the equation is totally in the wrong! She looks like a real jerk through much of the movie, which makes it difficult not to root for/side with Tom. Granted, we're seeing things from Tom's point of view, but there is little effort to explain Summer or to make her a balanced character. It's kind of odd, but kind of refreshing in a weird way, and it gives a viewer (or at least me) kind of a nice surprise compared to expectations.

5Q Movie Review: Green Lantern: First Flight

Q: We know what you're gonna say--this is another excellent DC Animated feature, these movies are all awesome, etc. Should we just skip ahead to that part?
A: Uh, no, because, well, this Green Lantern movie isn't awesome. In fact, I'm kind of disappointed. It has some cool scenes and visuals and is overall a competent production, but that's just it--it's competent, more like the typical Marvel animated features, without the spark or the humor that, say, the recent Wonder Woman movie has.

Q: Are you just hating on Hal Jordan because he's the GL in this one?
A: Actually, he is just one of many Lanterns; it's more a Green Lantern Corps story than a Hal Jordan story. That's fine, but it's just weird, considering DC has spent so much energy pumping up the Jordan character on the comics side, that here he often seems just like another guy. More to the point, his origin and setup is rushed at the beginning to get us into outer space. Now, I'm grateful not to slog through another drawn-out retelling of an iconic superhero origin, but the Hal Jordan character, through no fault of star Christopher Meloni, is more colorless than "green" throughout "First Flight."

Q: Well, what about those cool parts?
A: I like the outer space battles, and there are a lot of them. There is a neat little "Training Day" scenario that plays out with Sinestro and Hal Jordan. There are no bad scenes here (a few illogical ones, mind you), but none that really make the movie stick in the mind, either. But if you want to see a Green Lantern Corps cartoon, this is it, and it's entertaining enough.

Q: Then why are you bitching about it?
A: Hey, Im not bitching! I'm just saying that it doesn't live up to the standards of some previous DC animated features. While there are some intriguing ideas in the story, particularly in Sinestro's motivations, the emotional resonance just isn't there. It's solid but forgettable.

Q: How are the bonus features? Don't these DVDs always have great extras?
A: Well, maybe someone can point out to me what a moron I am, because I rented this from Netflix, got one disc with no option for a second, and could only find one screen's worth of disappointing extras, none of them specific to Green Lantern. What a bummer! What's the deal, Netflix? Or am I just a complete "poozer," to quote Michael Madsen as veteran Lantern Kilowog?

5Q Movie Review: Up

Q: After much deliberation, you chose this as the movie to see on your birthday and the first one you had seen in a theater for over a year. Was it worth it?
A: Absolutely! The fact that it could well be the only movie I see in 2009 should not diminish its current status as Cultureshark's Best Movie of 2009. It's an amazing experience that evokes all kinds of emotions and offers the fun of a summer movie without sacrificing the story quality you expect from Pixar. It's up there with their best, and that's saying something.

Q: So this isn't just for kids, then?
A: No way. In fact, if anything, it may be too sophisticated for little kids. Some of the themes in "Up" will stick far more for the older folks in the audience than they will for the young'uns. And unlike in "Finding Nemo," there aren't a bunch of pretty fish to look at. This is not to say the movie is not appropriate for all ages.

Q: I heard that there are some saaaaad parts to this movie. What's "Up" with that? Ha! Notice that little joke there?
A: Very little. Anyway, yes, there is a montage near the beginning that tells the story of the marriage of Ed Asner's character, and it is staggering in its impact, yet its done with a delicacy and beauty such that it never seems too manipulative. It establishes this latest Pixar effort as a film with real resonance, and sure enough, the rest lives up to that by offering some thoughtful messages about how we live our lives, what is important to us, and how we process things.

Q: Hey, you're making this sound like some kind of art film instead of a big blockbuster animated film with pretty computer art. You did say this was fun, right?
A: Of course it is! I tried to go into "Up" knowing as little as possible--about the movie, wise guy--and I was pleasantly surprised at the scope it achieves within the framework of a charming story about an elderly guy and a plucky but pestering boy scout. Yeah, they go up in the air, propelled by balloons, and of course they squabble with each other...but there is a significant action element to the story. It's touching and heartfelt and "small" in the best sense of the word, but at times it's thrilling and raucous and big.

Q: OK, you're clearly a huge mark for Pixar. Is there anything they can do to screw up right now?
A: Hmm. A lesser studio would emphasize the wacky animal character Kevin, pushing the creature up front to provide a bunch of kiddie-friendly big moments instead of keeping it in acceptable doses as a supporting player. A lesser studio would crank up the "name" factor in the voice casting instead of building the movie around the "sort of iconic but hardly A-list at the box office" Ed Asner--who is perfect. A lesser studio would favor juvenile humor and story elements rather than the more sophisticated kind of "all ages" approached used here.

Fortunately, Pixar is not a lesser outfit, but one of the best things going together. An "off" movie for them is something like the still-enjoyable "Cars," and more often, we get something like the wonderful "Up."