One Whole Month

OK, I've been very bad about maintaining this blog in the past month. My explanation for the week after my last post is that...well, I was moving into my first house, what can I say? If I wasn't going to be writing for Box Office Prophets (by the way, just to get it out of the way, I have been writing for that great Web site as of late, so check out my work on the A-List and my Classic Movie Reviews), why would I write here when I was too busy lugging boxes here and fro?

It's hard to escape the fact that I was being lazy elsewhere, though. Today, though, I seem to be inspired to put fingers to keys, so let's just run down a few things that have been poking around my brain.

I have seen, since the debacle known as Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen--a movie I'm seeing again tomorrow, though not really by choice--a few movies. Quick rundowns...Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was extremely well-done. Not just as a Harry Potter movie, mind you, but as a movie. OK, that last part probably isn't true for anyone who hasn't seen any of the other movies or read any of the books. Let's be honest, though, if you fall in either of those camps, what are you doing watching the sixth movie in an eight-movie series as your initial one? No matter. This sixth installment was incredible, though not without its flaws (after thinking on it, and being nudged by a co-worker, I am forced to accept that the Burrow burning down halfway through is a beautiful exercise in style, but nothing more).

I also saw Bruno, a movie which was more disappointing than I expected, if only because the only cause for that disappointment was meant to be it copying Borat just too much. Bruno is certainly a carbon copy of Borat, but what bothered me was the movie's evident scripted nature. Too many people knew what was going on, maybe not that Sacha Baron Cohen was behind that faux Austrian accent, but they knew something was up. I'm not talking about the musicians who show up at the end; they knew, but since it was essentially an end-credits gag, I'm fine with it. The focus group? Fake. The talk show? Fake. So much of the movie was fake, so many of the big gags, that things just fell flat. Disappointing; not unfunny, but disappointing.

I also saw Moon, a movie that isn't getting enough of a push. It stars Sam Rockwell, the voice of Kevin Spacey, and...well, that's about it. The last couple of years have had far more movies with few actors and sparse scenery, but Moon may take the cake. This is a near-perfect movie; in fact, if only the last 10 seconds were dialogue-free, I'd be hard-pressed to find a single problem. Having said that, it's hard to fault the movie or its director, Duncan Jones (also known as David Bowie's son, and a gifted filmmaker) for its flourishes, when there are so few to speak of. This is a movie for anyone to appreciate the gift of great acting. Sam Rockwell is, alongside only a few others, a truly talented man, worthy of plenty of accolades and statuettes.

But speaking of Sam Rockwell, let's get to something that's pissing me right off: this weekend at the movies. Here are your three major releases: G-Force, Orphan, and The Ugly Truth. Let's deal with them in order. The first film is the guinea pig action movie. Yes, those are four words I never thought I'd even think, let alone type. A kids' action movie about guinea pigs. I realize that people like Sam Rockwell may need the money; hell, even Penelope Cruz may want a few extra dollars in her bank account. I would love to know what Jon Favreau is doing in this movie. Yes, I know Nicolas Cage also lends his voice to this embarrassment, but...well, he's Nic Cage. The man is currently filming a live-action version of The Sorcerer's Apprentice. You know...a live-action version of the animated short from Fantasia. The one where Mickey Mouse wears a hat and conjures up lots of brooms. So...yeah, he's just doing paycheck after paycheck. But why are good, talented, working people like Jon Favreau (who can't be hard up for money since he's directing the movies of the Iron Man franchise) in this shit?

Then, Orphan. This one just looks like a miserable time at the movies, but I have to admit, I was curious. I was curious enough to know what happened; what is wrong with this weird kid, I wondered. So I went to IMDb. I looked it up, and I have had this verified by enough Web sources to know that the sheer ridiculousness of the third-act twist isn't because it's fake. It's just ridiculous enough to be true. I won't tell you what it is, because if you pay to see it, you deserve to have your time wasted.

Here we come to my final rant. The Ugly Truth. A "romantic comedy" starring Gerard Butler and Katherine Heigl. I wish to bring to your attention once again a few choice words Ms. Heigl had about the movie Knocked Up, comments she made in Vanity Fair in its January 2008 issue. She called the film "a little sexist. It paints the women as shrews, as humorless and uptight, and it paints the men as lovable, goofy, fun-loving guys." Now, I'm not even going to get into the many, many reasons why she's wrong (or at least why the reasons she's giving to bolster the idea that Knocked Up is sexist are faulty). What I will ask you is this: do you know how much she got for Knocked Up? 300,000 dollars. Then, Knocked Up made a lot of money. Her next movie, a starring role, was 27 Dresses. She made $6 million for that film.

So, while you consider how badly the money means to her, let's think about her latest movie, where she stars as an uptight TV producer paired with a goofy, fun-loving cad of a guy. Hmm...I wonder what that sounds like to the woman who participated in that interview. Sexist, maybe? The Ugly Truth appears to be terribly sexist, and Katherine Heigl is quickly turning from an actress who speaks her mind sharply and wisely into an actress who just needs to close her fucking mouth for a minute and be happy that she makes millions of dollars for movies she can trash as soon as the check clears.

Now, I'm not going to lie; as lazy as I have been with this blog, and with getting my scripts out to agents (and I am very guilty on both counts), I can't lie: the fact that these three movies got made makes me bitter. I have been told that my scripts aren't engaging enough. Perhaps I need to make a movie with a demonic little girl with a talking guinea pig for a pet and an uptight mother, and the offers will flood in. Sigh. Big, fucking sigh.

Critic-Proof, I Know...

But I'll talk here a smidge about my experience of watching Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Is it, as you may have read, the worst movie ever made? No, not by a long shot. Now, don't get me wrong: this is not a good movie. This is a bad movie we're talking about. There are many, MANY things wrong with the second film in this franchise, but I don't need to go over them, because I just don't care. I don't care because the filmmakers didn't care enough to make a film with any thought. Just remember this much: Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzmann wrote the script for Star Trek. Star Trek is a great movie. They co-wrote this second Transformers movie with Ehren Kruger. This movie sucks.

However, I can't fully bash a film with the following line, delivered with a straight face: "I told you I was going to open a space bridge. It's the fastest way to travel to Egypt!" Of course it is.

Am I The Only One Who Doesn't Like Sandra Bullock?

Yeah, I think so. Read about her new success at the box office in Part One of this week's Monday Morning Quarterback at Box Office Prophets:

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11727

Quick Thought

PETA is comprised of moronic people who are governed by a woman who once supported eco-terrorism. I'm very glad that they're spending their time getting on President Obama's case for KILLING A FUCKING FLY.

The only good that's come of this? Jeff Goldblum on The Colbert Report. Brilliant.

I Live in the Stupidest State in the Union

Yes, you heard it here. No, I'm not proud of the fact that Arizona is currently being run by some of the dumbest politicians, some of the rudest, boorish, know-nothing people to wear business suits. Right now, I'll point out everyone's friend to the death of education, Tom Horne, the Superintendent of Public Education. I first came in contact with Tom Horne (and it's about as far-off as it gets) when he was the keynote speaker at my commencement ceremony at Northern Arizona University in May of 2008. He came up not to extol the virtues of the graduates who sat in front of him. No, Horne decided to talk to us all about why the AIMS testing was great, and how dare anyone tell him differently. For those of you who are unaware, the AIMS tests are a set of standardized tests that students in Arizona schools must take if they want to graduate high school. The tests are (without going into the technical details) very much out of wack and poor arbiters of a person's knowledge. Moreover, what students learn before the AIMS tests are simply meant to make sure they don't flunk the damn things.

So Tom Horne chose his bully pulpit to talk about the AIMS test. Now, I'm not a teacher. My wife is, but I'm not. We were both graduating that day, and I can assume that not everyone in that stadium where we got our diplomas were teachers. I realize that Horne's got education (or the complete lack thereof) on the brain, but maybe it'd be wise to not spend his time talking about it until his face turns blue. Why? Because we get stories like the recent one, where Horne publicly pushes a bill that would rid the Tucson school district of Raza studies, or Chicano studies. Or....ethnic studies. Tom Horne wants to ban ethnic studies. He has already gotten rid of some women's studies courses (and thinks this is a badge of honor, because he is a heartless fiend), and now wants to rid us of ethnic studies.

Of course, I'm being unfair. Tom Horne just wants to get rid of SOME ethnic studies courses. If it's about America, go right ahead. If it's about white people, knock yourselves out. If it's about white men, go crazy. But if we dare learn about the struggles and plights of women or people of color, hold on. Horne has said that the Raza studies would, as all ethnic studies do, promote "ethnic chauvinism." The bill has said that "public school pupils should be taught to treat and value each others as individuals and not based on ethnic backgrounds." I will let you do the math on the fact that Horne's comments ARE ethnic chauvinism (because, and it may come as a big fucking shock, white people have an ETHNIC BACKGROUND) and that the bill's language is arguing against....what it's arguing for--ethnic background is part of one's individuality, fuckers.

Just remember...I live in the stupidest state in the union.

Drunk or Flying as High as a Kite

Either way, two movies are dominating the box office, good and great. Read about the success of The Hangover and Up in Part Two of this week's Monday Morning Quarterback on Box Office Prophets:

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11709

Double Take

So, I ended up seeing two movies this weekend, both of which were movies that I'd already seen: The Hangover (with the wife, who hadn't yet seen the film) and Up (this time in 2-D, not 3-D). On the one hand, I'm proud to say that the latter film is just as powerful, affecting, and exciting as it as the first time around. True, I didn't get to see the film in 3-D, which means that I missed out on a second view of the fancy new Pixar logo. Still, it was awesome.

On the other hand, the former film, the newest raunchy comedy, wasn't as hilarious as it was on the first go-round. I don't want to spend too much time on The Hangover, partly because I still won't have major thoughts on the film, but because the movie's getting such great word-of-mouth, and it's certainly a good movie, that I don't want to be the sole person raining on the parade. However...there are a few flaws the film has, which I'll quickly discuss. First of all, the first 15 minutes are kind of a slog to get through. I, for example, had seen enough of the trailers and ads to know that the story was about three guys who lose the groom of the bachelor party they're attending in Vegas because of a massive hangover. I knew they'd have to spend the movie figuring out what they did. I knew they stole a tiger, I knew Mike Tyson showed up, I knew there'd be a baby.

I say all of this because the first 15 minutes pretends that I've never seen a single trailer. Thus, the opening is slow, it's somewhat boring, and not very funny. Part of this is thanks to the fact that the first act spends times poorly trying to build the characters into something more than types. And they are only types. Think of this: The Hangover is Old School in Vegas. And that's all the movie is. Thus, the realism the movie tries to achieve isn't perfect.

But, a good movie, still. Just not the best ever. Anyway, that was my weekend of moviegoing. How was yours?

Take 1, Take 2, Take 3...

The remake of the subway hijacking film, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, is the topic of Part One of this week's Monday Morning Quarterback on Box Office Prophets...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11705

Quickly...

I saw The Hangover this weekend. I wanted to write a review, and yet, the more I think about it, the less I care about putting my major thoughts into words on the blog. If you've yet to see it: you should, but remember this...the movie is Old School in Las Vegas. That's all it is. Frankly, this one has more flaws, but it is very funny, likable, and entertaining. Not the funniest movie ever made, though; calm that hype down, folks.

A Defense of Talking Dogs and Charles Muntz

Copyright 2009, Disney/Pixar

Apropos of, I suppose, absolutely nothing, I feel the need to stand up and defend certain aspects of the latest Walt Disney Pictures and Pixar Animation Studios film, Up. Yes, I know I'm the biggest Pixar fanboy, or certainly one of those who would defend most of their product (as I've mentioned many times in the past, if you're looking for a Cars apologist, you will not find one here). Still, after hearing some podcasts and critics, most of whom probably may not read this blog, I felt like I ought to make my tiny voice heard and see if anyone agrees, disagrees, or falls somewhere in between.

As you may have gathered from the title, I'm going to defend Charles Muntz, the villain of Up (voiced perfectly by Christopher Plummer), and all that he creates and represents within the story of the film. Having only seen the film once, I can't guarantee that my explanations will be perfect, so bear with me. Still, the film is still relatively fresh in my mind, and most of the major arguments are tied to things that are more general than specific. So, let's start. The common criticism with Charles Muntz, the Lindbergh-esque explorer who, in the 1930s, finds a mysterious species of bird in South America, is that he's either completely unnecessary within Up or he's not fully developed. Both criticisms are, to me, wrong.

First of all, let's clear the air about the major themes that Up deal with. Loss and how we deal with it is obviously major, but the theme that ties Muntz to the story, and to the lead character, Carl Fredrickson, is the inability to let go. In Carl's case, what he needs to let go is not his dream of traveling to the haven of adventure known as Paradise Falls. What Carl needs to let go of is his wife, personified as the house that he first sets aloft with balloons; later, of course, he literally drags the house through Paradise Falls, so he can bring the spirit of his wife to said falls. What Charles Muntz has a problem letting go of is the aura that once surrounded him. His name is besmirched in the 1930s by scientists who claim, falsely, that his new species of bird is a hoax. So he spends the next 70 years failing to find another of the birds, all because that species is just a bit smarter than he is, just a bit craftier, able to hide in some of the hidden areas nature created for Paradise Falls. Which is sadder: the inability to let go of one's ego or the inability to let go of one's love?

So why have Charles Muntz in the story? Sure, his story may be fascinating in some ways, but his purpose on screen is merely so Carl can meet him. Carl, who has idolized this man for his entire life, who has been in love with the idea of getting away from the real world; he must see Charles Muntz for who he has become, for the sad, crazed old man that now inhabits his body. Carl must see the price a person must pay for not letting go. Charles isn't able to move on; he's too proud to be called a fraud. Carl chooses, though, to let his life continue without being an immovable object within it. Charles stays rooted in his zeppelin, in the world he's created for himself. That world is, of course, the least human thing found in Up and, at the same time, rooted in as much realism.

And so we get to the second argument that people bring up about the movie: the talking dogs. That the dogs that Muntz has talk, in a way, doesn't pose an issue. It's that the dogs are somehow endowed with the ability to do things only humans can do: cook food, clean, and even fly small biplanes. For many people, the last one is the final straw: dogs that fly planes? You gotta be kidding. Here's why I never had a problem with the dogs, in any way: at no point do they act human. We can assume (since it's never mentioned explicitly, which is, in my opinion, a major plus) that the dogs were taught all of these human things by Muntz. I can't really imagine that Epsilon, the zeppelin's chef, figured out how to make such gourmet meals on his own. We know that the collars were created by Muntz; Muntz chose to create this world, these dogs, and he ultimately failed. Think about it: at what point do the dogs act truly like humans?

Yes, the dogs clean. Except when Muntz and the other humans aren't looking, the dog cleaning a fossilized bone tries to bite it, as a normal dog would. Yes, the dogs fly planes. And they don't fly very well, they're poor shots, and when a person says the word "squirrel," they're immediately distracted. Yes, the dogs talk. And when the dogs talk, it never sounds like the vocalized thoughts are coming from a mind that has a mastery of common English. Think about how the dogs talk. When Alpha threatens Dug late in the film, and says he'll enjoy what's about to happen, he says so in such a roundabout fashion. None of the dogs speak English the way a person fluent in the language would. And why would they? They're dogs.

Muntz tries to humanize his canine companions, but only manages to enhance how dog-like they are. Yes, the dogs cook, but those who don't try to eat the food that's surrounding them. Yes, the dogs do more than most dogs do, but they never feel like humans. If the dogs had walked upright, I'd be pissed. If Muntz wasn't meant to be a scary parallel to Carl, I'd be pissed. Neither happened. And so Up still works. Here is a movie that, the more I think about it, the more I love it. Best movie of 2009. Hope you enjoyed the mini-thesis.

A Home Run

OK, this week's A-List may not be that awesome, but you should, as always, read it, on Box Office Prophets; it's about baseball movies...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11693

Land of the Truly Lost

Yes, the Will Ferrell movie fell big time; we discuss it in Part Two of the Monday Morning Quarterback on Box Office Prophets...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11688

What Happened Yesterday?

Or, rather, this weekend. Turns out that the nutso R-rated The Hangover stuck it out and won the weekend box office (but Up had a great showing). Check it out at Box Office Prophets, with the weekly Monday Morning Quarterback...Part One!

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11684

Hulot...Hulot...Hulot

Mr. Hulot, that is. A classic movie review on Box Office Prophets of the 1954 classic Mr. Hulot's Holiday...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11673

A Look Back at Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan

Copyright 2009, Paramount Pictures

As I end the Pixar marathon, I begin a new one. Yes, I'll finish up the Jason Bourne trilogy soon, but for now, it's time to look back at the Star Trek film franchise. Before I get into the first two films, which I've comprised into one review for reasons I'll delve into soon, I just want to establish that I got into the entire franchise thanks to the 1987 reboot of the series on television, with Patrick Stewart, Jonathan Frakes, and Brent Spiner. That pretty much means that anything before then--the Kirk era, as it were--is relatively foreign to me.

Granted, I loved the overhaul of the Kirk era from J.J. Abrams, but I never assumed that there was, for example, any other answer to the Kirk vs. Picard debate than the latter. Why wouldn't I side with the captain I'd grown up with? Still, I've seen all of the Star Trek films, with only one exception. Before last night, I'd never seen Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the film that started it all. OK, the TV series from the late 1960s really started it all, but in terms of really fueling the fire of fandom, it was the 1979 epic from director Robert Wise that kick-started the franchise.

And only God knows why that is. I will be perfectly honest: I tried. I really, really tried, but could only get through 90 minutes of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Yes, I got through two-thirds of this ridiculously slow movie. Why didn't I stick around for the last 45 minutes? Reader, I would have given myself a lobotomy before I forced myself to do that. That said, I'm going to spend a little bit of time on the first two movies, as my thoughts aren't too deep on either, but overall....I must share some disappointment.

Now, being fair, I knew going into the first film that I was probably not going to enjoy it. What I wasn't expecting was for the series' creator, Gene Roddenberry, to have been so inspired by 2001: A Space Odyssey that he decided to supplant its middle section in all of its worst elements into an entire, 135-minute movie. The fact that no one, not one single person, told Roddenberry that spending five whole minutes on two men approaching a ship docked in space would me among the most mind-numbingly boring sequences ever put on film shocks me to my core. How could no one have told the people involved that it might be wise to speed up to the actual plot of the movie? How could no one have spent any time on creating a good plot? How? I'd like to move on from this movie, so my last words are these: whoever thought a slow-motion sequence would be a good idea is a moron (though it's terribly funny).

So, The Wrath of Khan. I'm scared, folks. I can't tell you how scared I am to consider the fact that I may have watched the best of the first ten Star Trek movies and found it to be hammy, corny, and just a bit too fake to enjoy. Yeah, I know that this movie came out over 25 years ago, but I'm not sure the Star Wars movies ever felt this cheaply made. No question, the second film is a major improvement upon its predecessor, but aside from Ricardo Montalban's delightfully over-the-top performance as the titular villain, there's not much to enjoy in Star Trek II, a movie which emphasizes too much blather as opposed to action. I wonder if the Elvis Presley lyrics "A little less conversation, a little more action" would be appropriate for the entire series, or just these two films.

Now, I've got the next two films in the series to watch, both of which will garner separate entries, but...I'm not too hopeful that things will improve until at least when Christopher Plummer turns into a Klingon. Can anyone dissuade me from this disquieting notion? Please?

You Know You Love The Old Stuff, Right?

If not, check out this week's A-List, about old movies for those who hate them, on Box Office Prophets...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11669

Up, Up, Up...

And away, and other easy puns. Read Part Two of this week's Monday Morning Quarterback, about the new Pixar film, on Box Office Prophets...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11666

The Pixar List

Copyright 2009, Disney/Pixar

For a time, this will be the last Pixar-related post on the blog, unless it's in regards to the box office success (or lack thereof, but I doubt such bad things will happen) of the latest release, Up or, who knows, maybe another Pixar story will seep through the cracks. Assuming such things don't happen, this is the last one for now. Some of you may be happy, some of you may be sad, but so it goes.

As mentioned in a previous post, I figured I'd spend my final post as a backwards countdown of my favorite Pixar films, which is a harder list to make than I'd have originally thought. Let's say this much: there's a big divide between the Pixar films I like a lot and love. No more wasted time, let's get started.

At number 10, currently holding the final position (and hopefully, always holding that position) is Cars. No surprises here if you know me or...well, if you've seen this movie. It's not that I dislike the film, but as I told someone today in an e-mail, just watch Doc Hollywood. All you need to do is watch the Michael J. Fox comedy, transplant cars instead of humans, and you've pretty much got the entire experience of watching Cars. Obviously, the most exciting aspect of the film is its eye-popping animation. Here more than anywhere else does the idea of photorealistic animation come into play. In the best scene of the film, Lightning McQueen and Sally take a drive around the wilderness surrounding Radiator Springs. At one point, awed by the beauty, Lightning drops his jaw; it may seem a bit arrogant on Pixar's part, but when you look at that animation, can you blame the jaw-dropping? Though its story and characters are the weakest among the bunch, there's still good here.

At number 9 is Monsters, Inc. If it makes anyone feel better, I like this film more than I did originally. Still, there's just something about this movie that I just don't love. It's funny, it's got some great action (the sequence at the end with the flying doors is the best scene in the film), enough drama. I suppose what turns me off is the screwball comedy elements that pervade the first hour of the movie. Mike Wazowski is just a bit too on-the-nose cute, with his snake-headed girlfriend and hammy jokes, just like Billy Crystal is in general. So...I like this movie a lot, but just not enough.

At number 8 is a sentimental favorite, A Bug's Life. Though it's certainly no one's favorite Pixar movie, I used to watch this a lot when I was younger; it was a movie I wore out on VHS. From the stunning visuals of Ant Island and the surrounding area to the frequent laughs to even those outtakes, I really loved A Bug's Life when I was but a mere teenager. Now, I find it a bit more clever than funny, but I still enjoy all of the characterizations that are covered in a very short period and still have some favorite lines ("I'm the only stick with eyeballs!"). Granted, A Bug's Life is the least complex film Pixar's ever made (even the original Toy Story deals with rejection), but as a fun lark, I think it's just fine.

For the number 7 spot, we have The Incredibles. Here's where it gets difficult. I want to make it perfectly clear that the seven Pixar films I'm mentioning starting here are all great movies, among the finest animated features ever made. I'd put these toe-to-toe with the other films released in the respective year. What it comes down to is nitpicks. For example, The Incredibles is not only a highly entertaining, suspenseful superhero movie, but a finely realized look at an imperfect American family. My two problems stem from the point that director Brad Bird wants to make, that mediocrity shouldn't be rewarded. I agree with the point, but by making Helen Parr, also known as Elastigirl, be so staunchly against acknowledging she was ever a superhero, and by having her son Dash enter the track team only to be encouraged to lose, things get screwed up. In all other ways, The Incredibles is much like its title, but those two elements have caused it to wind up on the bottom half of the list.

Of course, being the seventh-best Pixar movie makes it still one of the best animated movies ever. At number 6, though, is Toy Story. You see what I mean when I tell you that the top 7 aren't really appropriately listed. If I had to choose five movies to keep on a desert island, this would be one of them. So, don't get too freaked out. As it stands, this one's a nostalgic favorite, with the introduction of some iconic cinematic characters, hilarious humor, clever gags, exciting action, and even some well-earned emotion. Also, this is the film to feature one of my favorite lines in any movie--"Wait a minute. I just lit a rocket. Rockets explode!"--so don't think of this as being the sixth-best Pixar movie. See it as being tied for number one with five other movies.

We're now onto the top half of this top 10, and the fifth-best for me is Finding Nemo. At this point, I'm not going to be able to justify one way or the other why a movie is placed at a certain number. This story of lost souls in a vast ocean is moving, funny (but not in the normal Pixar way, thanks to the two lead characters), and tense. Sure, we all know Nemo will be found, but the stakes are high because who among us hasn't flushed a fish down the toilet? Who among us hasn't put fish into an aquarium? Who among us hasn't eaten a fish? Though we're in the place of the fish here, it's hard not to feel a pang or two of guilt when you see fish caged up nowadays.

Number 4 is Toy Story 2. Let's get this bold statement out of the way: Toy Story 2 is, along with a sci-fi epic and a lengthy mob movie, one of the best sequels ever. Those three movies are so damn good because they're better than their predecessors. How is it that the folks at Pixar could turn what was once going to be a direct-to-DVD story into one of the most successful and amazing movies of the past 10 years? How is it that these people can make me feel bad for abandoning my toys when I grew past a certain age? Maybe this is why I'm so worried about the upcoming threequel, a movie that could be incredible (fingers very much crossed), but could be a big mistake. Either way, we have Toy Story 2, with all of its humor, excitement, and the best Randy Newman song ever.

At number 3 is Up. As I mentioned in a previous post today, here we have the saddest film Pixar's ever made. What is sadder in this life than wasting it? What is sadder than watching a man lose his dreams, his wife and, eventually, his house, all because he can't let go? What is sadder than finding out that your boyhood idol has turned into a madman? What is sadder than losing your parents to divorce? I've only seen the film once, hope to do so again, and am confident of its status here. One of the reasons I hesitate to have the new film top the list is precisely because it's new. I want to make sure it still holds up in a few months; not that I doubt it won't, but it's nice not to jump to such immediate conclusions. What I can say is that the film is the best of the year so far, and yet another monumental achievement from this studio.

The silver medal goes to WALL-E, a movie that pushed Pixar even farther away from the mainstream, although it's celebrated for appealing to such mass audiences. How do you sell a movie with a silent first half-hour, a title character who doesn't speak, and a love story between two robots? Of course, the same could be asked of Up, but the point stands: this was the film that may well have put a line in the sand. Here is the movie where Pixar shies away from its past. Here is the movie where something different is called for. The soaring romance, the minimalist score, the bleak but awe-inspiring visuals...need I say more about WALL-E to prove its greatness?

And, yes, all of this means that the number-one pick is Ratatouille, a movie I just took a look back in the post below this one. Like all of Pixar's films, it has flaws (though it's fresh in my mind, Up is the one that works best by either glossing over its flaws or just not having any), but I don't care. The character of Remy is decidedly imperfect, decidedly human. He pushes his friends and family away at the wrong times, but they pay off for him in the end because, somewhere deep down, they want him to do better. The rats may not understand why Remy wants to cook, but they want him to do it. Linguine may not get much of anything, but he knows what friendship is and will stick by his little chef. Ego may not understand or comprehend that a rat can cook, but it will finally prove to him that the late Auguste Gusteau was always right: anyone can cook. Kudos to Brad Bird for making the best portrait of the modern artist.

So there you go. The best Pixar's offered. Now, come next June, I won't do an extra look back, but I may comment on how well Up has done in its growing longevity. Other than that, feel free to comment, tell me I'm crazy, tell me I'm wrong, or even--shocker--agree with me.

A Look Back at Ratatouille

Copyright 2007, Disney/Pixar

I know that we've been jumping all over the place lately with the final push of my look back at the Pixar films (the sole exception being WALL-E, which I reviewed back around the beginning of the year), but it's interesting to realize that, in some ways, the 2007 Pixar release Ratatouille was the first time that anyone in the studio truly pushed back against audience expectations, delivering a story and characters that seemed almost forcefully unmarketable.

Before this relatively deep look at what it means to be an artist and how much and how hard you have to work at getting to your dream's fruition, Pixar had made movies about toys, bugs, monsters, fish, and superheroes. Even though 2003's Finding Nemo had some challenging storylines, it was still pretty easy to market because, in some form, people had seen the story before. There have been movies about parents trying to find their lost children. It's not so often that you see a story about a rat who wants to be a cook...in Paris. Rarer still does that seemingly outlandish and completely unlikely tale work.

When I first saw Ratatouille in theaters, I was excited, partially because I saw it as a return to form. The only Pixar film I didn't see in its original theatrical release was Cars, partly because my wife didn't want to see it, and partly because...well, I didn't want to see it either, not as much as I would for other such films. This film, however, got me excited; Brad Bird was returning to the director's chair, the cast was almost purposely not famous, featuring Patton Oswalt, Brad Garrett, Brian Dennehy, and Peter O'Toole. These are all known actors, but to varying extents, and not one is as popular as Larry the Cable Guy. So I was thrilled.

This first experience was when I saw the first trailer for WALL-E, a movie that seemed even more difficult and inaccessible for children than did Ratatouille. However, the former film was challenging, but less complex in some ways than that of the story of Remy. The best example I can give you is one of the most accurate scenes in film history about any profession, and the scene that just may be my favorite from Pixar ever.

Take a wild guess, and you can assume what it's going to be: the climactic review from ominous food critic Anton Ego. In many ways, Ratatouille has been careening towards this confrontation between critic and chef from the first minute. One of the first images we see is of Ego, the notorious food critic who may well have helped along the death of Remy's culinary idol, Auguste Gusteau. Remy will have to prove himself and his worth as a chef at some point, and it fits perfectly that Ego is the judge of how good a craftsman the rat is. Now, the review is preceded by the scene where Ego takes one bite of Remy's ratatouille and is rocketed back to memories of his childhood, and of how his mother would give him the dish as a comfort food. And without being told, we know that Remy's dish is perfect, not because it reminds Ego of his mother's cooking, but because his mother's cooking was perfect. Ego obviously wants to talk to the chef but has to wait. Oswalt, as Remy, narrates this scene, explaining how the two remaining human employees who are wise to Remy's scheme tell Ego he has to wait until the restaurant is closed, in hushed tones. Then, Ego finds out.

But what seals the deal is that review Ego delivers, in the beautifully crafted script by Bird and Jim Capobianco. Not only is Peter O'Toole at his finest here (in a performance that easily sails to one of the best vocal performances in American cinema), but the words, the meaning, the many ways in which it may be analyzed...all is breathtaking. What struck me in the theater on that first viewing as Ego explained his life as a critic, his stance against true creativity and artistry, as a way to praise Remy's skills as a chef, is that not a single kid under the age of, say, 8 or 9 would understand a damn word of what he was saying. Oh, sure, they'd get that the evil-looking critic liked Remy's food, but that's not what the review is about. Each Pixar film--yes, even Cars--has a moment or two of complete transcendence, whether it's a house sailing via balloons, a toy retelling its sad life without being loved, or, in this case, a meditation on criticism, on being creative, and on the position of art in society.

One of the reasons that, in many ways, Ratatouille is my absolute favorite Pixar film is because of that moment, a moment that still gives me chills. After having seen the film countless times, I can see its flaws (though I don't really have any issue with him, the character of Alfredo Linguine is a bit too goofy), but I treasure its creativity, adore its characters, and nod with appreciation at its cleverness, its humanity and, above all, its relatability. Yes, a movie about a talking rat is relatable to me. How many movies with such completely implausible storylines (and yes, as much as I appreciate this film's attention to detail and realism, the story is ridiculous, especially when Remy's fellow rats band together to save the restaurant the creative rodent has been toiling at) can boast such a claim?

The More I Think...

The more I really loved Up, which may not be my number-one Pixar film (I'll have a list of best to worst from Pixar later today), but is unquestionably the saddest film they've ever made.

Anyway, take a look at Part 1 of Monday Morning Quarterback, all about Up, at Box Office Prophets...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11662

Up

Copyright 2009, Disney/Pixar

You know, it's a funny thing. Today's the day that the box office estimates for the most recent weekend (read: the one that's not over yet) are reported. To my surprise, there were a fair amount of people on these here Interwebs who actually thought it possible that Up, the tenth feature film from Pixar Animation Studios, would end up grossing somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 million dollars or less in its opening weekend. Of course, by the time I made my way over this morning to pick up tickets for the 3-D presentation of Up, I'd already read that such naysaying was coming to no avail: as of right now, Up has grossed an estimated 68 million dollars, which makes it the third-highest-grossing opening weekend for Pixar.

Still, even if I didn't know that number, I wouldn't have been too surprised. See, I went to pick up tickets for an 11:30 A.M. showing of the film around 9:00 A.M. The first 3-D show of the morning was at 9, and by the time the lights in the theater were dark, the movie was sold out. Now, for context, I'll tell you that my local AMC doesn't have 3-D technology in its biggest theatre (their biggest theatre has a capacity of over 450 people, whereas the 3-D theater has only 170), but still. A Sunday morning at 9...sold out. By the time I got in line for the movie at 10:50, the 11:30 show was sold out; when my wife and I left the theatre at 1:30, the 2:00 show was sold out. Such business does not denote a 50 million or lower opening.

Don't be worried, by the way, that my time spent on talking about box office and sold-out shows means I'm about to burst the balloon of immensely rave reviews and say that Up isn't a good movie. No, Up is far better than good; like all of its Pixar predecessors, the film is not only a marvel of animation, but lots of fun to sit through. Not once did I look at my watch (it's a rare thing that I don't these days); even if I didn't have on the 3-D glasses would I have succumbed to this temptation. I was excited, thrilled, moved, and delighted. Encapsulating all of the best parts of Pixar films, Up is quite possibly the most universally entertaining film these people have ever made.

Not just because two of the three lead human characters are senior citizens is Up an all-ages success. Kids can delight not only at the colorful settings but laugh at Carl Fredricksen (Ed Asner, in a finely tuned performance that is both childlike and prickly) and all of the wacky characters who surround him. Adults will laugh at some of the more clever sight gags (such as the artistic touchstone of dogs playing poker) and maybe even well up a few tears at the very real portrayal of a man still pining for his late wife. Coming after Ratatouille, a movie about a feisty rat who wanted to cook in Paris, and WALL-E, a movie about a silent robot that inadvertently saves the human race while trying to find his true love, Up is a movie that more people may be able to relate to, a movie that more people may want to see again.

Speaking of which, I am very curious to check out Up in 2-D. Now, unlike some critics, I didn't have a single problem with the 3-D presentation of the film. I realize that a few folks were worried about the overall color dimming, but the only time I noticed this effect was during the non 3-D material that came before the film. The reason I'd like to check the film out without the blocky 3-D glasses is because I'd like to see what the experience is. As my wife pointed out, there's not a whole lot of cheap trickery at play here. Directors Pete Docter and Bob Peterson (who also wrote the script with actor/writer/director Tom McCarthy) don't feel it necessary to remind us that the movie is in 3-D, which is a nice surprise. Still, I wonder if the balloons that surround Carl, the snipe he and an 8-year old stowaway find in a mythical place in South America, or even that mythical place would look markedly different in 2-D.

Anyone who reads this blog or my work on Box Office Prophets knows that I am nothing if not a Pixar nut. I certainly don't love each of the Pixar films (need I mention Cars again?), but I'm a big fan. Safe to say, I was predisposed to like this movie. What I find most fascinating about Up is that, in many ways, it is the most adult, the most mature film from the studio. Putting characters in various positions of peril is not something Disney shies away from, whether it's Dumbo being put in a cage, Bambi's mother getting killed, or Mufasa being pushed into a stampede of wildebeest by his brother. It's rare, though, that a movie from the Mouse House, within its first 10 minutes, shows a character finding out that she's infertile and then dying. It's also rare for one of the lead characters to talk about his parents being divorced without actually saying so. From overhearing a couple chatty kids behind me in the theatre, it's safe to say that some parents will have a bit of explaining to do on the ride home. Now, not having kids of my own, I won't do anything but applaud the choices made by Docter, Peterson, and company here. Maybe the tune will change when I'm the one struggling to explain why a woman can't have kids.

No matter. Though it may challenge the youngest ones in an audience, Up is a sensational film, a surprisingly funny and moving picture, with enough moments that are worthy of cheers. You probably already know the basic plot (old man lifts house up with balloons and heads to South America), but the slightly more intricate facets are worth the surprise. Of course, I wish that critics had kept their mouths shut about the opening section, which is not only the most realistic material Pixar's put on screen but the most emotional. With only Michael Giacchino's score to provide the sound (and what a phenomenal score it is), we see how Carl, once a shy boy in love with exploring lost worlds, met a similarly-minded girl named Ellie, fell in love with her, got married, had a normal life together, and put their dreams of traveling to Paradise Falls (that mythical place I mentioned earlier) aside. One day, Ellie passed away, leaving behind a bitter and old husband behind. Their trip to Paradise Falls was close to coming to fruition, but as it always happened, life got in the way.

Carl ends up living in the same house he's lived in with Ellie for years, but by himself, in more ways than one. The entire neighborhood has been bought out by a construction company; though Carl refuses to give up his land, when he inadvertently injures a construction worker, he's forced out. Since he was a balloon salesman his whole life, the man has the tools for escape and uses them. That he is accidentally joined by Russell, a chubby little boy who stows away while performing his duties as a Wilderness Explorer, just compounds Carl's grumpiness. They land in Paradise Falls after a time and...well, avoid any spoilers if you can. It's not like we're dealing with an episode of Lost or something, but there are some times in movies where it's worth not knowing everything that happens.

As with WALL-E, the cast here is relatively small. Aside from the perfect Asner, Christopher Plummer (as the famed explorer Charles Muntz), Jordan Nagai (as Russell), Delroy Lindo (as a henchman) and John Ratzenberger (as a construction worker) are the most major players here. I would be remiss if I forgot Bob Peterson himself, who voices a few dogs that Muntz owns, dogs that can talk thanks to a specialized collar. Peterson's very funny here, but again...I don't want to ruin the fun. Up is just as much a love story as last year's WALL-E, as much of an adventure as The Incredibles, and as emotionally gratifying as Finding Nemo. Though I'm not ready to yet dub Up the best Pixar's ever made, the film easily lands in the top five, if not higher. Finally, as the fifth month of 2009 arrives, we have found a great film, the best of the year so far.

A Look Back at The Incredibles

Copyright 2004, Disney/Pixar

First of all, apologies for stretching this out so long. I have still not yet re-watched the 2007 classic Ratatouille, the other Brad Bird-directed Pixar film, and will be making a pilgrimage to the local multiplex tomorrow to see, in digital 3-D, Up. There will definitely be a review of the latter film tomorrow; I've decided, though to forego a look back at WALL-E, partly because I'm not sure I'd have anything truly insightful to say on the subject that I didn't say back in late December. That said, let's begin.

Brad Bird was the first, and only (at this point), person to make a movie at Pixar without being a product of the animation studio. Yes, animation fans will know very well that Bird was good friends with John Lasseter and another future Pixar folk during his time at CalARTS, but even the 10th Pixar release, Up, was created by Pete Docter and Bob Peterson, two men who have worked on every Pixar film in some way. Having someone like Bird make a Pixar movie isn't just comforting because you know his background (Family Dog, The Simpsons, and The Iron Giant are among his impressive filmography); it helps because Pixar is acknowledging that they alone do not corner the market on creativity.

And, in many ways, honing creativity, that special gift that may elude many of us, is what The Incredibles is all about. This 2004 superhero epic has a lot of fun subverting the genre while also providing the goods, with some slam-bang action sequences. However, Bird is far more interested with the state of the American person. We live in a society where mediocrity isn't shunned, but awarded. Though Mr. Incredible, or his alter ego Bob Parr, believes that truly special people are the ones who lose out, he's more frustrated that, for example, his son Dash is graduating the 8th grade and a ceremony is necessary. Why does that have to be celebrated in as serious a fashion as a high school or college graduation? Though Pixar easily stepped out of being strictly for children with its second Toy Story film, a movie like The Incredibles leaves kids in the dust. How will an eight-year old be able to relate with the point Bird is trying to make?

I say "trying," because one of the only flaws, and certainly a forgivable one, with The Incredibles is that the point isn't made very well. Think of how the movie ends: after triumphing as a family over the villainous Syndrome, the Parr family goes back to normal life, watching Dash in a track and field meet, encouraging him to not go too fast and, eventually, end up in second. Bob has spent the entire movie trying to convince his wife, Helen (also known as Elastigirl), that the kids should try and be special, that their talents should be encouraged. Oh, sure, Dash is finally on the team, but...shouldn't he be winning? Why should the family go back to a relative amount of normalcy? Granted, at the end of the meet, they're ready to do battle with the Underminer, but it's hard to believe the rant against mediocrity when Dash is meant to lose, if only by a few feet.

Flaw aside, The Incredibles is one of the most fun movies Pixar's made. Though all of their films are about adventure in some way (yes, Ratatouille is the most low-key film in this respect, but being in a Parisian kitchen is an adventure all its own), Bird's creation takes about 30 minutes to get going; once Bob, as Mr. Incredible, has traveled to Nomanisan, the mysterious island that Syndrome calls home, the movie never stops its relentless pace. The action sequences, from Mr. Incredible's first encounter with the smartest robot ever created to Dash's headlong run through the island, are frenetic, colorful, and thrilling to watch. In his first outing as composer with Pixar, Michael Giacchino (on a roll these days, with his work on Star Trek, Fringe, Lost, and even Up) provides a jazzy, bouncy score that harkens back to the 1960s and 1970s.

The voice cast, while not uber-popular (the biggest name is Samuel L. Jackson, and he only appears in about 20 minutes of the movie), is excellent. Craig T. Nelson and Holly Hunter are both powerful and browbeaten as Mr. and Mrs. Incredible, a loving married couple whose spats are painful because of how real they sound. Jason Lee, as Syndrome, is probably the best actor to pull off a line such as "You sly dog! You got me monologuing!" Moreover, the animation of these characters is realistic enough; this film was the first with humans as the focal point, and it's easy to see how far the technology and craftmanship has come since they created Andy, his sister, and his mother in 1995's Toy Story.

Overall, The Incredibles, which currently boasts the highest opening-weekend gross for any Pixar film (though it's Finding Nemo that is still the highest-grossing film of all), is a fun, sly piece of entertainment. Of all of the Pixar movies, this is the one that demands a sequel, and would be easiest to create. The characters are just about as prickly and realistic as those in Ratatouille, the story is exciting and surprisingly relatable, and the whole film is one of the best Pixar's ever made. I dare not use the obvious pun on the title, but....well, you know what I mean.

Terminator Salvation

Copyright 2009, Warner Bros. Pictures

At its best, Terminator Salvation is too mediocre for its own good. At its worst, the fourth film in the Terminator series is howlingly bad, a groaner that will live on in late-night cable television, an utter obscurity. Think of it this way: how well do you remember 2003's Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines? Six years from now, you will remember Terminator Salvation just as strongly.

Now, to be fair to the director of this latest entry, McG, things could have been...worse. I'm not sure how much worse (although the supposed alternate ending, in which John Connor, under the guise of Marcus Wright, kills everyone sounds like a terrible idea), but...yeah, the movie could have been more awful. As it stands, the film stands as an embarrassment for the more respected people involved in the process. For a guy like McG, who still finds it hard for people to take him seriously thanks to his goofy nickname (and buddy, if you've got a problem with that, just use your FULL NAME), it's hard to be too critical. I mean, let's be frank: I've seen both Charlie's Angels movies, and compared to them, Terminator Salvation is a masterpiece.

Let's start with Christian Bale, who stars as John Connor, the famed leader of the human resistance against the Terminators and other machines concocted by Skynet, a military defense program that becomes self-aware and goes crazy against its creators. Now, rumor has it that Bale was originally approached to play Marcus Wright, the convict who donates his body to Cyberdyne, the company that created Skynet, right before being executed. I'm not sure that Bale is great as John Connor, but how much better could he have been as Wright? The man who plays the latter character, Australian newcomer Sam Worthington (who will be seen later this year in James Cameron's Avatar), isn't all bad; in fact, as soon as he can control the accent of the character he's playing in a film, he'll be pretty interesting to watch.

But back to Bale. Think back, if you can, to this past January. A most infamous audio recording that now lives in YouTube infamy was revealed; in it, Bale goes apeshit on the director of photography for Terminator Salvation, Shane Hurlbut. The context that was later provided for this rant was that Hurlbut was walking through a scene that Bale and Bryce Dallas Howard (as Kate Connor, John's pregnant wife) were attempting to go through, a scene that was apparently so intense that Bale wasn't able to calm himself down because of how riled up he'd made himself to make sure the performance worked. About halfway through Terminator Salvation, I realized that I wasn't completely sure that scene had occurred yet. As it stood, Bale and Howard weren't on screen together much, and their time together consisted of hugging, kissing, and...well, not much else. The only other major scene the characters share together has been slightly spoiled in the TV spots (suffice to say, one of the many famous one-liners associated with this franchise appears). Guess what? Not an intense scene. Now, my moviegoing friend pointed out that the scene may well have been cut, but...come on. How could such an "intense" scene be excised from a movie that tries so very hard to be...intense?

In short, what we have here is a situation where the people involved tried too hard to make things seem more weighty than they were. McG promised fans that this film would be rated R, and it's rated PG-13. He mentioned that Jonathan Nolan, the man who co-wrote The Dark Knight, was behind the script; though Nolan is considered an integral part, the sole credited writers are John Brancato and Michael Ferris. And let's get to that script. One of the reasons I can't beat up too hard on a guy like McG is because, I presume, he didn't write some of the truly awful clunkers this movie offers up. "Now I know what death tastes like." "We have to stay alive...in HERE and in HERE." I don't want to keep recounting these lines for fear that I get a massive headache, but you get the idea. One of the many reasons that this new Terminator fails is because of how bad the dialogue is. Christian Bale, Bryce Dallas Howard, Anton Yelchin (as the uber-important Kyle Reese), and Helena Bonham Carter (yes, that Helena Bonham Carter) are all great actors, but if you give them shit to say, they can only do so much.

Another major flaw the film has is that it just makes no sense. Now, I realize that, in some ways, none of the movies in this franchise make sense. We're talking about movies that feature so much time traveling, they bend in on themselves. But, and if you can answer me this, you win a shiny nickel...how, in the year 2018, could Skynet know that Kyle Reese is the father of John Connor? Now, as audience members with a presumed knowledge of the series, we know this is true. We know that, at some point in his life, Kyle Reese will be a very important person. But how does Skynet know in 2018? At this point, Kyle is established as a goofy teenager who hasn't earned his stripes yet (literally, by the way, in one of the dumber stories). How do they know? And, even if they do, why do they waste time by not killing him when they have the chance?

Lots of unanswered questions pop up here, but if you've ever wanted to know how John got that scar of his that we see in the second Terminator film, you will know. If you want to know what Arnold Schwarzenegger looks like in a slightly cartoonish state, you will know. If you want to know what kind of movie makes T3 look like a classic, you will know. And, if you want to know how shameless McG and company are with regards to stretching this series out as far as it can go, oh my God, you will know.

Over-Rated, Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap!

Or something like that. Someone at Box Office Prophets isn't happy with my choices of overrated movies, but you should still check it out...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11651

Well, Shucks

Or, gosh. Or, gee whiz. All phrases one Jimmy Stewart would say, the man profiled in this week's A-List on Box Office Prophets:

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11634

A Day Late

But still awesome. It's this week's Monday Morning Quarterback at Box Office Prophets...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11624

TV Musings

This coming week is not only the week before the wife and I head off to Disneyland (six days, and not even that much when you consider the fact that, within six days' time, we'll already be in Anaheim), but it's the upfront week for network television, when we all find out if our favorite shows are saved for another year, cancelled, or left off into summer limbo.

Thanks (and I do mean that more seriously now than I would a week or two before) to the decision made by Ben Silverman and the flywheels at NBC to reveal most of its new shows two weeks ago, there have been far more announcements of shows that will return for a new season and, unlike most years, the four networks--ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC--have decided to all take a heaping does of crazy juice and renew shows that--Shocker!--actually deserve it based on quality.

Dollhouse, the latest Joss Whedon drama that would presumably die a painful death after a short first season, has been renewed, though the official placement won't be known until this time tomorrow. But, this show got renewed. The fact that it is, by and large, one of the lowest-rated network shows no longer matters, thanks to TiVo, Hulu, and various other options people have to watch this and other TV shows. I've been too lazy as of late, so I wasn't able to write up a post about this show--an odd drama starring Eliza Dushku as both a completely blank slate and anyone in the world--as being the best drama worth saving. That it lives for at least 13 more episodes surprises and pleases me greatly.

Better Off Ted, the most recent show from Victo Fresco, the man who created Andy Richter Controls the Universe, the best comedy you didn't watch in the last few years, was renewed by ABC. Its ratings weren't that great (the key rating, adults aged 18-49, was averaging around 1.8 on its normal timeslot, which isn't anything to brag about), and yet it lives. This was the best comedy worth saving, and it's saved. Only a month ago, I would watch this show, laugh my ass off, and then grumble about the seemingly obvious fact that the show wouldn't make it past its inaugural year. I'm thrilled that ABC is taking the chance on this show for another year.

And part of that chance is being taken presumably because, for better or worse, ABC has renewed Scrubs for a ninth season. Granted, the show's lead, Zach Braff, will only appear in six episodes, and Sarah Chalke would--if at all--appear in six episodes, and Judy Reyes has yet to be approached, and Neil Flynn is on another show, but...well, OK, it may not have been the wisest move for ABC, but if it means another few episodes that may be good, I'm thrilled.

Finally, though I may have mentioned CBS, the last network I'll touch on is NBC (I don't watch a single CBS show, and could care less if the network vanished), which has just renewed Chuck. This is a show loved by many--liked by me, loved by the wife--that got saved, and rightfully so. If basing it solely on ratings, if a show like Southland, which has been tanking as of late, gets a second season, Chuck oughta get a third. The budget may be lower, but I doubt the quality will be the same.

But...seriously, why didn't the execs take crazy juice when Arrested Development was on? I mean, come on!

Reading is Fundamental

But, sometimes, the movies get it right. This week's A-List, Movies Based on Books, straight from Box Office Prophets...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11613

Star Trek (2009)

Copyright 2009, Paramount Pictures

What the eleventh feature in the Star Trek series, with only those two words in the title, truly is could be categorized as great fun. No, not every film in the series is fun to sit through, and some Trekkers may argue that fun isn't what these movies are supposed to be, but let's just let them suffer through this film in frustrated silence. Only a curmudgeon could sit through Star Trek and not have a fantastic two hours at the movies.

I suppose I ought to double back and explain here that I am not a dedicated Trekker nor am I a complete know-nothing when it comes to the franchise. I was born in 1984, so my first major exposure came with the second TV series, Star Trek: The Next Generation. I can't honestly remember having seen a full episode of the original series, though I'm sure I have. Thus, there was never really any contest: Picard was a much better captain. I've seen all but one of the movies (that would be the oft-loathed first film from 1979); as a heads-up, after the Pixar and Bourne retrospectives end, I'm going to go through all ten Star Trek films, with this as a kind of inaugural start.

And yet, I'm not sure I wouldn't have wanted to see this newest film in the series, partly thanks to the phenomenal final trailer that ends with a lengthy shot of a missile heading straight for a Federation starship. How could I resist a film from J.J. Abrams, whose star continues to rise, what with his successful TV series, Lost and Fringe (kudos to the latter show for a great finale, by the way), and his feature debut, Mission: Impossible III, which was a fun action film with some great performances.

I specified that it was the final full trailer that got me excited, because the first full trailer almost completely turned me off. For some reason, the folks who made the trailer thought it wasn't just right to showcase the actors playing James Kirk and Spock (Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto), but that the scenes with the two should show them fighting each other. Because that's what I want to see; two great friends, before they're buddies, beating the crap out of each other. Great. To be fair, I wasn't ever completely thrilled with either casting decision, partly because I'm not impressed with Pine's previous work and Quinto seemed to be channeling his TV character, Sylar, in the trailer.

The trailer was mighty deceptive. Oddly, those scenes of them in the middle of a fight is from one and only one scene about two-thirds of the way through the movie, and the reason why Kirk goads Spock into the skirmish makes far more sense. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's start here: my presumptions about Pine and Quinto were dead wrong. Pine, in particular, is a born star, full of charisma, charm, and snark. I'm not well versed enough in the franchise to say he's a better Kirk than William Shatner was, but he makes the character work on a completely different level than Shatner ever could. There are plenty of little plot points here that you could question, specifically why the captain of a starship would make a stowaway the first officer in his absence, but when you already know that Kirk has to be the captain of the Enterprise, you're willing to forgive. I never thought I'd say this, but I want to see Pine's next film to make sure it's just the one movie that he dominates in.

Quinto is also great, as the conflicted Spock, younger and more snippy than he was even in the original series. He never feels awkward as the logical half-human, half-Vulcan, even selling the infamous Vulcan salute. Quinto sells the imperiousness of the character along with the confusion and frustration. Seeing the younger version of the character get goaded into showing emotion is not only a great bit of foreshadowing, but the older version seems just as willing to let himself go. In fact, the whole cast here, from top to bottom, is excellent. I want to make special mention for Simon Pegg, who shows up late in the film as Scotty and steals the show; Zoe Saldana, as the flirty and coy Uhura; and Eric Bana, as Nero, the head villain, who sets the movie in motion by traveling through time in a black hole and blowing up the ship that holds one First Officer George Kirk, whose sole act as captain of a starship is to evacuate everyone, including his wife, who gives birth to James Kirk as the ship explodes.

The plot is, as it goes with anything Abrams is involved in, a bit too complicated to go into, but Nero killing the elder Kirk sets all the characters from the starship Enterprise into a completely different reality. Tribbles? Haven't happened yet and may never happen. Klingons? Not yet. Khan? Well...who knows? Of course, the movie does end with all of our favorite characters on the Enterprise with Kirk at the helm, but still, the possibilities are endless and I can't wait to see what Abrams and screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzmann do for the 2011 sequel. Kudos to the whole cast and crew for making Star Trek popular. Cliched as it may be, I'm ready to end this review by declaring the 2009 summer movie season officially on. Here's hoping the rest are as good as this one.

It's Coming, It's Coming

Yes, the review of Star Trek is coming, thanks to the hourlong filler special of Lost in one hour (cannot wait for the finale!), but for now, read the third part of this week's Monday Morning Quarterback on Box Office Prophets...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11610

OK, I'm Guilty

No review of the big Enterprise flick today. Tomorrow, I promise. For now, read Part II of this week's Monday Morning Quarterback at Box Office Prophets...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11606

The Final Frontier

So, Star Trek came out this weekend, and kicked ass at the box office and in general (a review is coming tomorrow, but know that I loved it). Read about it and other topics at the Monday Morning Quarterback on Box Office Prophets...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11602

Where's The Canary?

You know? Oh, then, you don't know. The canary's in here.

And...scene. I hope you enjoyed my replay of the only lines I remember by memory from 1946's Gilda, which I reviewed for Box Office Prophets...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11596

Watch Dollhouse tonight at 8/7 central!

You Get a Franchise, and You Get a Franchise, and You Get a Franchise

Franchise films, the ones that are good, are the topic of this week's A-List on Box Office Prophets...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11593

Read!

Now, Wolverine Sings!

Well, probably not in the second part of Monday Morning Quarterback on Box Office Prophets, but you should read it just to double-check...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11582

A Look Back at Cars

Copyright 2009, Disney-Pixar

Cars, the seventh feature film from Pixar Animation Studios, holds a special place in my heart, but not the kind you'd think: it's the only film Pixar's ever done that I didn't see in theaters. Though the ostensible reason was due to my wife having zero interest in the film, the real reason was that...well, I didn't really have a major pull to see the film. That alone should tell you something, coming from an avowed Pixar fanatic. When you have John Lasseter, the Pixar head, the man who directed Toy Story, directing a movie, I should want to go. But, no, and when I first caught up with the film on DVD, my fears were proven right.

In November, though, once I got myself an HDTV and a Blu-ray player, Cars was one of the first films I bought on the new format. Despite my being so-so on the film, there's no question about this much: with Cars, Pixar makes leaps and bounds from its previous animated efforts solely in terms of technical skill. If anyone ever asks you why they should buy an HDTV and/or a Blu-ray player, and you happen to own this film, tell them to hold on as you put on the 21st scene of the film, when Lightning McQueen and Sally the Porsche take a leisurely, flirty drive around the small town of Radiator Springs. There's little in terms of dialogue here as we watch the two cars drive around the most photorealistic vistas and landscapes Pixar has ever created. It's so damn awe-inspiring, Lightning drops his jaw and I can't blame him. The animation here is flawless, with the exception of the "faces" the cars have, which are rooted in old-style Disney cartoons.

But let's be honest: Cars is, by the terms of previous Pixar films, not great. If it had been the company's first feature film, we'd all be over the moon about it, at least upon its initial release. I'm not so sure it would have had the lasting effect that Toy Story has, but the film wouldn't have been so thoroughly disappointing, because there'd be no prior hype going into it. Instead, we're looking at the film that follows up movies like Finding Nemo and The Incredibles, two truly fantastic movies that work on a commercial level, but are also complex in their stories and characters. Cars, on the other hand, is easily the most unsubtle film Pixar's ever made. Within the first five minutes, you know exactly what problem the main character, Lightning, an arrogant young race car, has, you know he'll learn a lesson about his problem, and he'll fix it. No surprises.

Another interesting thing I noted is how, for the first time (and hopefully the last time), the folks at Pixar fell into the trap those working at DreamWorks make on an almost daily basis: they make far too many jokes that kids won't get, jokes that are squarely targeted at adults. What often separates Pixar films from DreamWorks films is the relatability of the characters and how the jokes cross boundaries. You don't have to be an adult to laugh at Woody and Buzz Lightyear struggling their way through a claw game and the fanatical toys living inside the claw; there are certain aspects to the joke that adults get more than kids, but everyone can laugh at it. But who under the age of 10 is going to get the joke of a character voiced by famed sportscaster Bob Costas being called Bob Cutlass? Having Jeremy Piven play a slick Hollywood agent is funny...if you know about Piven's role on HBO's Entourage, but kids won't know that.

Even worse, once the film steps away from having oddly placed celebrity cameos, the story that unfolds is both extremely slow-paced (I ended up being a bit distracted halfway through the film, and after another 15 minutes, Lightning hadn't gotten any further at being found by his own famous entourage of agents and the like) and completely derivative. It pains me to use those words in describing a Pixar film, but the truth is the truth. Though it's funny in parts and the animation is sensational, Cars is too much of a specific labor of love meant to cater to John Lasseter and his Walt Disney-esque fondness for a time long since forgotten. Obviously, having that kind of nostalgia works very well for Disney (and I'm certainly not against it, being a Disney fan and an annual passholder for Disneyland), but in Cars, it falls flat.

The story is, again, very slow and nothing original: Lightning is a successful race car who needs to be taken down a peg or two, gets stuck in a small town, and learns to be a good person...er, car. In paying more attention to the story this time, I realized also that it's the love of Sally that turns Lightning around. Of course, I'm not particularly sure that Sally's affection is warranted; it comes out of nowhere that she begins awkwardly flirting with him. Sure, having Bonnie Hunt as the voice of Sally helps, but why should Lightning (who starts out as an affable if almost completely awful character, someone who you want to fail) deserve any nice treatment from her? We've seen Lightning be rude to every denizen of Radiator Springs, act condescending to the only character who wants to be his friend (Mater, voiced by Larry the Cable Guy, in a performance that's far more likable than I would have originally thought). Now, suddenly, Sally turns on a dime and likes him; this feels very false.

Again, I like Cars. I certainly don't love it, despite some great performances from Owen Wilson (as Lightning), Hunt, Michael Keaton (as Lightning's main rival), and the late Paul Newman as the crusty Doc Hudson. The animation is awesome, proof positive that Pixar will always win the visuals game. Unfortunately, following up Andrew Stanton and Brad Bird doesn't do wonders for John Lasseter; at least, not this time.

A final note: I realize I'm going out of order here, and the next look back at Pixar will be of last year's WALL-E (not a repeat of the original review, either). Still, bear with me. We've only got the Brad Bird films to look at, and those will be great treats for me and, hopefully, for you too.

Roar....

Wolverine struck last weekend, and now you may read the Monday Morning Quarterback about it on Box Office Prophets...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11581

Frozen River

Copyright 2009, Sony Pictures Classics

I must be in a grumpy mood this weekend, because a movie like Frozen River, one that's been somewhat of a darling to some critics since it premiered at some film festivals last year and ended up garnering its lead actress, Melissa Leo, a Best Actress nomination at last year's Oscars, just didn't work that much for me. Though the plot is, in itself, incredibly engrossing and most of the performances work, something about the story, written and directed by first-timer Courtney Hunt, fell flat.

First of all, I'm going to play contrarian and wonder why exactly Melissa Leo got that nomination. OK, being honest, I know exactly why she got nominated. Independent film that most people have never heard of? Check. Actress whose face, not name, is familiar? Check. Actress in "raw" and "gritty" role? Check, check, check. Though she's not bad, Leo's not worthy of an Oscar nomination, whether the field wasn't exactly heavily populated last year. Here's the thing: in the first shot we see of Leo's character, Ray Eddy, she's smoking a cigarette. Simple enough. Oh, no, not here; here, Leo crumples her face in, sucking on the cigarette with every ounce of oxygen she's got. Why? Because that's how a "real person" would do it, and capturing "real life" is what this movie, and Leo's performance, is all about.

Unfortunately, the plot is more fascinating than the film alongside it. Ray is this close to being completely broke, trying to support her kids on a part-time salary at a dollar store in upstate New York. Her husband has vanished with a good chunk of cash, and when a Mohawk woman named Lila ends up stealing his abandoned car, Ray chases her down. They end up embarking on an odd friendship, sealed by their attempts to smuggle illegal immigrants across the river stretching from New York to Canada, all on the Mohawk reservation.

Obviously, there's lots of intriguing territory here, along with heaping doses of suspense. Why, then, does it feel like Hunt's too busy trying to show me how destitute the people in this film are? A good portion of the film is spent more on establishing that, yes, these people are poor. They are desperate. See, Ray works at a dollar store and can't get the manager to give her a full-time position (the manager's reasons make absolutely no sense, by the way). See, she lives in a trailer and wants to move up to a doublewide. See, her car's old. Get it? They're poor. Are you aware of that?

Frankly, whatever problems I have do not extend to the other actors, especially Misty Upham. Upham, who plays Lila, is prickly when dealing with Ray or even her own family. Lila's a more fully realized character who never seems desperate, despite all signs pointing to that fact. Though she's obviously not as experienced a film actress as Leo is, her side of the friendship is far more realistic.

At the end of the day, the problem with Frozen River is its inconsistent relationship with realism. At one pivotal point in the film, Ray has no interest in driving some Pakistanis over, only because she thinks that the bag they're carrying must have a bomb in it. Apparently, I'm supposed to side with a hypocrite who has no common sense. Now, I know what you're saying: I'm probably not supposed to side with Ray. The ending would have you think differently. Though it's not particularly happy, we're supposed to be glad that Ray won't be too worse off for being a smuggler for a few months. Sigh. Though it wears its indie cred on its sleeve, Frozen River is a movie in search of a stronger and more realistic, not "realistic," performance and a stronger script.

A Look Back at The Bourne Supremacy

Copyright 2004, Universal Pictures

It's been a couple of months since I took a look back at the beginning of the successful film series about ex-government killer Jason Bourne. Finally, I've gotten a chance to catch up with 2004's The Bourne Supremacy, a film that I saw twice in the theaters. The second time, I fell asleep. Granted, the first time I saw the Paul Greengrass-helmed actioner, I was in one of the front rows and couldn't handle the shaky camerawork that's a staple of Greengrass's style. The second time, though, I ended up seeing the film because my friends wanted to see it. I was just out of luck.

Now, having seen it a third time, not in a front row, not tired, I can say wholeheartedly that Bourne Supremacy is not a movie worth falling asleep during, nor is it a great film. I'll say this: it's better in various ways than its 2002 predecessor, The Bourne Identity. The script, by Tony Gilroy, is relatively sharp, moreso than the original. Here, Bourne faces off against two groups: the CIA, led by Pamela Landy (Joan Allen, smart and savvy); and an assassin (Karl Urban) hired by a mysterious Russian man with ties to the Americans. When Bourne's girlfriend (Franka Potente) is murdered during a chase in India, Bourne swears revenge against those who just will not leave him alone.

Having Greengrass as the man behind the camera as opposed to Doug Liman (who's a solid director, but doesn't have any kind of intriguing or unique style) helps enormously as does the handheld cinematography, which is not nearly as uncomfortable when you're in the comfort of your own living room. What's more, Gilroy creates a smart adversary in Pamela Landy, a woman whose methodical, nearly robotic nature end up getting her in more trouble with people not named Jason Bourne. Only once does her dialogue really ring false--in a montage sequence where she tries to give a pep...well, a pep yell rather than a pep talk and Greengrass poorly sets up the idea that this pep yell isn't happening over a minute or two, but that she's been doing this for hours or something. Aside from that, Landy's a smart character, even when butting heads with Ward Abbott (Brian Cox, weaselly as ever).

I liked The Bourne Supremacy. I guess I'm still not sure why everyone goes crazy about the Bourne series of films, but then again, I've yet to see the 2007 threequel. The action is fast, Damon is appropriately taciturn, but maybe it's that flaw that distances me from the films. Bourne isn't meant to be an emotional or explanatory guy, but it's hard to empathize with someone who says no more than a few sentences throughout an entire film. That said, I do like the series now more than I did originally. Maybe The Bourne Ultimatum, the follow-up to Supremacy, is the best of all. Still, I get the feeling that Greengrass, for all his flashy work, is best suited to real-life films such as Bloody Sunday and United 93, movies that evoke more emotion and are more visceral for being so true.

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist

Copyright 2009, Sony Pictures

I don't want to spend too much time here, but I got a chance to finally see the fall 2008 teen dramedy Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist and wanted to say a few words. None of them will be very kind, though, which surprises me more than it may surprise any of you. I'd wanted to see this film when it first came out, but The Dark Knight being shown at an actual IMAX theater in my area beckoned. My wife and another friend saw it; both enjoyed it. The reviews were relatively good. All of this leads to a question: what is wrong with these people?

Nick and Norah is not only a disappointing film, it's unrealistic, annoying, cliched, and other adjectives that should deter you from putting it on your Netflix queue. The plot is mostly threadbare: Nick (Michael Cera) is a recently dumped high school senior in a band populated with gay guys and him; Norah (Kat Dennings) is the daughter of a record producer who knows Nick's slutty ex, admires his musical taste, and winds up meeting him on a whirlwind evening through New York City as they try to find a band called Where's Fluffy. Do they fall in love? Is the Pope...well, you know.

And that's part of the problem. Nothing about this movie is particularly special or unique. That which tries to be unique just comes off as weird. Why, for example, would a band thinks its best marketing tool was being so elusive as to send people off on wild-goose chases for their performances? Maybe it's me, but that's too much work for a musical sound that's nothing you haven't heard before. Mostly, this movie is chock full of cliched characters. Though Cera is charming here, if you've seen him in...well, anything else, you will not be surprised about his acting choices here. Dennings is also good, but there's not much work for her to do aside from looking annoyed or frustrated. The other actors are game, but the script is weak. Ari Gaynor (now seen as a single mother on Fringe) is funny as Norah's drunk friend, but a running gag with her chewing gum is not only disgusting, but pointless (even if I'm willing to buy that she'd keep chewing her gum after it landed in a toilet full of vomit, why would anyone else chew the gum without that knowledge?).

Overall, Nick and Norah is just not a good movie. Maybe I'm a bit grumpy, but movies with characters as one-note and misguided (so you broke up with a guy and you're following him around New York City...right) as these are a waste of my time. Of course, this movie's only 90 minutes, which may be its sole saving grace.

Bang! Pow!

And other such noises made by characters in comic book movies, the subject of this week's A-List on Box Office Prophets:

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?indexID=32

Monday Morning on Tuesday Afternoon

Yes, I'm a bit off, but no matter! Read this Monday Morning Quarterback...

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11556

A Look Back at Finding Nemo

Copyright 2003, Walt Disney Pictures/Pixar Animation Studios

Walt Disney Pictures and Pixar Animation Studios have made, as of today, nine films. 2003's Finding Nemo is the fifth; as a midpoint in the current output from Pixar, it's interesting to look at the film as the major turning point for the fledgling computer-animation company. Two main stories have emerged since the film's release, both of which could have pegged the film as a failure. First, the unspoken truth of the original voice of the film's lead, Marlin, a neurotic father whose son goes missing in the vast reaches of the sea; though Albert Brooks, who does voice Marlin, was the first choice for the film's director and co-writer, Andrew Stanton, William H. Macy got the role and did the entire script before...well, Stanton and friends just didn't think his voice worked. Obviously, we're never going to hear Macy's work, but the story goes that he understood as much as the Pixar folk that he wasn't right for the part. Either way, Brooks is fantastic in the role.

The other story is more well-known: in 2001, as Monsters, Inc. was readying for release, the head of the Walt Disney Company, Michael Eisner, was not thrilled with the work being done on Nemo. He thought it was weak & Marlin was shrill and annoying. He figured that this film would be the first slight against Pixar, which had been previously perfect; critics and audiences loved their films, and he figured Nemo would stop that streak. Thanks mostly due to Stanton's wise decision to alter the film's story around and to fix some script problems, Eisner was proven wrong. Stanton had originally held back on revealing exactly why Marlin was so neurotic (his wife and the rest of his children are eaten by a barracuda), explaning the story in flashback. As we now see it, the entire scene opens the film and wastes no time in explaning why the character voiced by Albert Brooks sounds and acts exactly like...well, most characters played by Albert Brooks: neurotic, worrying, and seemingly weak.

Eisner, as I said, was wrong. In fact, he was so wrong that it ended up, in some way, costing him his job and getting Pixar to pretty much control far more of Disney than he might have wanted. Finding Nemo is Pixar's most successful film, with just about $340 million domestically, and over $850 million worldwide. It's the highest-selling DVD of all time; musicals, theme park attractions, and the like have been created because of the film's success. Most importantly, Finding Nemo was the movie that helped reinforce this idea: when it comes to animation, there is now no longer Disney vs. everyone else. There is Pixar, and then there is the long distance between them and everyone else. When Disney reigned supreme, it was because there was no competition. Pixar came along and rivals sprung up; as successful as those rivals are, when you boast Kung Fu Panda as your strongest film....I don't know how well it speaks for DreamWorks.

Finding Nemo may not be the most complete break from the older Pixar films, the movies that added plenty of clever humor based on human-style interactions among non-human characters (the first 10 minutes of Nemo poke fun at fish in the same way), but it's the first film that dealt with main characters and their realistic drama. Before this, only Toy Story 2 hinted at this with the subplot involving Jessie the cowgirl. Here, though, is a movie whose main character is genuinely complex for genuine reasons; his sidekick has a mental disease which impairs her severely (yes, Dory the tang is adorable, but the truth is the truth). The dentally savvy fish who Nemo meets in the aquarium he's stolen away to by an arrogant Australian dentist are almost too human to function in the ocean and have been completely institutionalized.

Yes, I'm reading too much into Finding Nemo, which is one of the more exciting adventure films of the past decade, a breathless and suspenseful story about a father's undying love for his only son. But the complexities are there in a different way than any Pixar film that came before it. Still, Finding Nemo is a far less complex film than Stanton's next directorial effort, WALL-E. Despite that, the animation in Nemo is arguably the best Pixar's ever offered, and that is saying a lot. The general design of the ocean and its inner workings looks close to photo-realistic without seeming too real. The fish in the film, from Marlin and Dory to Nemo and Gill, look real enough; some look freakish, such as the menacing fish with a light attached to its forehead. It took the folks at the studio in Emeryville, California six years to complete the picture, and all the work shows.

The script, by Stanton, Bob Peterson, and David Reynolds, is sharp and crisp; we spend enough time with every character and feel like they're all clearly defined, even the three dads who pester Marlin, a clownfish, to tell them a joke. Of course, with Brooks and comedienne Ellen DeGeneres as Marlin and Dory, the movie is made in the shade. Brooks and DeGeneres take two characters who are very potentially awful and obnoxious and make them not only fully realized but fully lovable. Though Dory is the more hilarious, both characters are brilliantly conceived and performed. Their relationship is easily the best twosome since Woody and Buzz. Moreover, it's easy to note a similarity between these two mismatched characters and Wall-E and Eve. The only difference here is that the main character of Nemo is the Eve substitute, not the Wall-E substitute.

I can't believe that I could have gotten you to read this far down if you haven't already seen Finding Nemo (hence my lack of explaining the plot beyond saying that Marlin, the dad, has to find his missing son, Nemo), so presuming that you are that rare person....SEE THIS MOVIE. Just stop reading and see it. I wouldn't put Finding Nemo at the top of my list of Pixar favorites (still WALL-E, Ratatouille, and The Incredibles at the top), but it's a great film, a great animated feature, and massively entertaining.