Wednesday, October 07, 2015

"Lass is More" Looks at Monsters, Horror, and Halloween

I do not like horror movies.  This is an intense dislike I have felt for years.  But it actually took me years to figure that when I say "I do not like horror movies" that exists with caveats.  I don't mind monsters and monster movies.  I am absolutely fine with nearly all psychological terror.  Hannibal Lecter?  No problem.

It is the slasher/things-that-go-bump-in-the-night movies that don't work for me.  I take movies home with me, all movies.  I like to be immersed in the world the movie offers and that doesn't go well with horror movies.  I have no desire to take horror movies home with me, to try to go to bed at night and think that they're might be a machete-wielding loon in the other room.

But, it is October and therefore Halloween is looming and horror is everywhere.  Today, Lass is More looks at the sorts of horror movies I like... even if I don't think some of the specific examples are great movies themselves.

Don't be scared, listen and enjoy.

photo credit: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment

Monday, October 05, 2015

"Lass is More" Talks to Actress (and more) Tracey Birdsall

Yes, it's Monday, but we've got a new episode of Lass is More anyway!  Why?  Because we recorded it, because it's interesting, because we've got a minisode coming later this week.

There are, in short, any number of reasons to go live with this on Monday, but the most important thing to know is this -- Tracey Birdsall is an actress, but not only an actress.  She's also a writer and a producer.  She has worked in the industry for years, and she has plenty of thoughts on her current projects, her past projects, and how she has gotten to where she is now.

This episode of Lass is More features Tracey -- who has an upcoming film, "Rogue Warrior: Robot Fighter" -- talking about it all.  From whether she has regrets to her favorite sci-fi movies, it's all here.

photo credit: Pacific Coast Entertainment

Thursday, October 01, 2015

007(x3) Weeks of 007 #18 - "Tomorrow Never Dies"

Welcome back to 007(x3) Weeks of 007. Today we have Pierce Brosnan's second, and perhaps second best, Bond outing, "Tomorrow Never Dies." Sure, I could talk about Sam Smith's song for "Spectre" which was released last week, but I'm not going to do that.

Why? Because it isn't very good and that makes me sad. The "Writing's on the Wall?" Oh god, I hope not, but that's certainly my fear with the movie (alternatively, "along with the rest of him").

So, "Tomorrow Never Dies." Rewatching it, the thing that stands out the most is Jonathan Pryce's media mogul villain, Elliot Carver. The man just chews scenery every time he's on screen. This is most apparent when Carver is talking with the heads of his various enterprises and the software guy explains that, as requested, whatever they're releasing is going to have a lot of bugs so that people are forced to keep on upgrading for years to come.

This is Bond villainy at its height and what seems to be an attempt to go back to the days of SPECTRE and classic Bond baddies who had their fingers in multiple pies. I am reminded of the early movies with SPECTRE meetings and discussions about how things were growing across the board, except with Carver running the show instead of some guy we never fully see but who likes his cat a whole lot.

Of course, there is no SPECTRE. There is only Carver, madly typing away on his mini-keyboard in a manner that seems unbelievable. That, and his crazy eyes. Seriously. How did this guy become the head of such a massive media conglomeration? One look and you know he's insane.

As much as I like Dalton as Bond, those movies moved away from the Bond stories, and the Brosnan years feel as though they're about reestablishing that. Brosnan's films are big, fun, movies with a Bond who feels deeply but can still quip with the best of them. Thus, Elliot Carver, a purposeful throwback to early Bond villains, and Stamper his throwback to those henchman (just as Xenia Onatopp is in "GoldenEye").

The thing is, as the franchise learned decades before "Tomorrow Never Dies," and as we've talked about, once you start getting bigger it becomes difficult to stop and there can be a tendency towards foolishness. Brosnan's movies get bigger as they go along, and while "GoldenEye" hits the perfect pitch, you can see "Tomorrow Never Dies" going just slightly too far. Best example of this outside of Carver and his crazy eyes? The remote control BMW. It is a cool gadget and it is fun, but the chase in the garage goes on for a while and, Bond dropping the car back off at AVIS by sending it off the roof of the garage and into AVIS's front window is a little much. Next week they'll go further and the week after further than that. Then, we'll be done with Brosnan and they'll strip it all away for another reboot.

I love the Brosnan films, whether they get big and a little silly or not. To me, they synthesize the Connery Bond villains and set pieces with the Moore Bond's penchant for humor. According to Box Office Mojo, adjusted for inflation, the two Dalton Bonds rank last and third-to-last at the box office (22 for "Daylights" & 24 for "Licence"). "GoldenEye" jumps to 12 and "Tomorrow Never Dies" to seven ("TWINE" is 11 & "Die Another Day" is six). Brosnan's Bonds were massively successful, even the less good ones. Brosnan made the character and franchise back into a worldwide phenomenon (Moore's last movie, "A View to a Kill" is 21 on the list).

This isn't me arguing that they are perfect—they most certainly are not—but they brought Bond into the modern era in a way that makes sure to acknowledge the past. They are, I think, what the Connery Bonds would have been if they were made 30 years later. Craig is great, but he doesn't exist without Brosnan, and you definitely don't get "Casino Royale" as an immediate follow-up to "Licence to Kill." No, you need the Brosnan movies in there to show you where everything goes after "Casino Royale" and that alleged first mission (I say "alleged" because of some of the continuity problems). 

What bothers me the most about "Tomorrow Never Dies" isn't it starting to lean towards excess, it's the way M is depicted. Early on they go back to the lack of "balls" Judi Dench's character has. They used almost the exact same phrasing in "GoldenEye." Then, at the end of the film when the Chinese and British navies are squaring off against each other and M has the information Bond sent to diffuse the situation, rather than making a phone call to the Admiralty, she goes to see them in person. While she is taking this drive, which is really just to rub the British Navy's nose in it in person, the two fleets could have attacked each other with disastrous consequences. World War III and the bad guy wins-like consequences. Bad call on M's part and something that only exists so that she can be seen to "win" the pissing contest between MI6 and the British Navy.

Some of this blame lands on director Roger Spottiswoode as there is a way to construct the end so M is already with the Navy, just as she was at the start of the film. It is certainly more dramatic this way, but it isn't right.

One last complaint, which I again lay at Spottiswoode's feet, and I'll be done. When Wai Lin and Bond are at the top of the Carver building in Saigon, they cut out the bit where Bond severs the ropes he and Wai Lin use to drop down the side of the building. This has always bothered me. We see the two spies looking at the ropes, we see Bond find a conveniently placed toolbox, and then we see the ropes separated and them ready for the jump off the side of the building. I need the moment where he cuts the ropes with whatever he finds in the toolbox. Either that or a cutaway to something else and then back to Bond. I'm sorry, but I do.

I also need to close this week's installment without even mentioning the spectacular motorbike ride which, now that I've mentioned, I can feel satisfied about. 007(x3) Weeks of 007 will return next week where we will all learn that "The World is Not Enough."

photo credit: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

"Lass is More" Offers "Love & Mercy"

It may not have come out on video this week, but "Love & Mercy" is still worth talking about.  It isn't just that it's a great Beach Boys biopic, it's a great biopic in general.  It manages to offer something quite separate from what we normally see in such a film.

We get two different men playing co-leads in the film, both as Brian Wilson, just at different points in his and the film cuts back and forth between the two.  Rather than being jarring or confusing, it works wonderfully.  And, while "Love & Mercy" may look at two very specific moments in the musician's life, it still manages to make us feel as though we know his story.

Whether or not you're a lover of the Beach Boys or music in general, if you just want good filmmaking, good acting, and a different sort of biopic from what you're used to, this one is worth checking out.

But don't take my writing of this opinion as all you need to know, click play below and listen to me say similar things... but differently... and more... and better.  Please.

photo credit: Lionsgate Home Entertainment

Friday, September 25, 2015

Movie Review: "Hotel Transylvania 2"

Sometimes a movie fails not because the story isn't fun or because the characters aren't interesting, nor because the actors aren't enjoying themselves. Sometimes a movie fails because the message it is sending, whether intentional or not, is horrid. This last thing, the horrid message, is the case with "Hotel Transylvania 2" (not that the other bits necessarily work), and there is no way to write this review without delivering spoilers. Be warned.

Following on the heels of the story in the original "Hotel Transylvania," this sequel finds Mavis (Selena Gomez) and Jonathan (Andy Samberg) expecting their first child. Mavis is, as you will know if you've seen the first movie, a vampire and the daughter of Dracula (Adam Sandler). Jonathan is human and that was a stumbling block in the first movie, but as Jonathan loved Mavis, Dracula gave the relationship his blessing.

Now though that they are expecting their first child, Dracula is worried that his grandchild may not be a vampire, that the child may be human. The movie fast forwards a few years, showing us moments from grandson Dennis's life, and the continuing fears that he may not be a monster (we are told he has until the age of five for his fangs to emerge).

"Hotel Transylvania 2" is the story of a mixed marriage, something that is becoming more prevalent (I say this armed with nothing but anecdotal evidence). As with any other marriage, it takes time for both sides to get used to any differences, be they large (religious beliefs) or small (watching TV while you eat dinner), and to work through those differences. Here the differences are, perhaps, slightly more magnified… or are they? I am not sure, and I'm not even sure that it matters.

Dracula is obsessed with whether or not his grandson will be a vampire. Obsessed with it. At the end of the movie we learn that Dennis is indeed a vampire, and Dracula exclaims that it doesn't really matter, he would have loved Dennis no matter what.

And therein lies the real rub – he says he would have loved him no matter what.

It is a patently false moment for the film. Dracula has learned nothing over the course of the movie to convince him of this, but he states it for two reasons. First, because the film has to state it; they have to say that it doesn't matter even though they spend the entire time worrying that it does. Second, Dracula can say it because it isn't something he has to worry about anymore. He can say it's okay to be different because Dennis isn't different, Dennis is exactly what Dracula wanted him to be.

What would have taken courage, what would have made the entire film far less horrific, is if Dennis was human and Dracula had actually learned that it didn't matter whether Dennis and accepted his grandson despite the difference.

I do not believe that it is the responsibility of "Hotel Transylvania 2" to build an awareness of difference more than it is the responsibility of any other film, except in that the movie is centered on this difference. The entire movie is about Dennis's DNA and whether his parents would be better off raising him with monster kind or human kind.

Once again, the answer to all those questions according to the film is – it doesn't matter, you could be anything and we would love you, but only because we already know you're like us and not them.

I could delve into the film's shenanigans, which aren't all that funny; the performances, which aren't all that great; and various other aspects of the movie, none of which rise past mediocre; but there is no point in that. The message the film delivers is so absurd and so offensive that to offer more than a sentence or two on any other aspect obfuscates that which must be front and center in any discussion about "Hotel Transylvania 2."

It is difficult enough to take back 90 minutes of foolishness with a last minute change of heart, but "Hotel Transylvania 2" doesn't even bother with that. Dracula is only able to say the right thing, to do the right thing, when there is no longer any possibility of him not getting his way, when there is no power left to the choice.

I simply do not know how else to read the film except as being about mixed marriages, and for its astounding answer in accepting them to be, "sure, you can have a mixed marriage as long as your children are like us and not them." This is something which I have a personal stake in (no pun intended) as my wife and I come from different backgrounds, and while that may have brought the issue here into more stark relief for me, the message being sent exists no matter one's status.

Skip it.

photo credit: Sony Pictures

Thursday, September 24, 2015

007(x3) Weeks of 007 #17 - "GoldenEye"

We enter the '90s this week on 007(x3) Weeks of 007. We have a new James Bond in Pierce Brosnan. We have a somewhat different real world in which the films operate. We have the first Martin Campbell directed movie. What's more, we have a brilliant film. It was probably in the top three at the time of release and top five now.

But, I'll tell you this, I'm biased. "Licence to Kill" was the first Bond movie I saw in the theaters, and I was already a big fan of the character at the time. During the massively long break between "Licence" and "GoldenEye," I want from fandom to closer to obsession and Brosnan is my Bond and "GoldenEye" is my Bond movie. My anticipation of the film actually led us in physics class to do a question about bungee jumps in the run up to the release.

Truly, I think "GoldenEye" is a work of genius. It is a completely updated story, bringing our hero to the modern age while continually acknowledging his roots.

Let's just look at how it starts, with what has to be one of the greatest pre-title sequences in franchise history. From the first moment, you know it's going to be great. That run across the top of the Arkhangelsk Dam followed by the bungee jump all occurs without a word of dialogue, not silence, but no words. It is this perfect moment in film, and the sound design draws you in, it gets you curious. The whole setup gets you excited because you know that some sort of Bond action is about to take place and this is the mode of entry to the facility that our hero is going to use to… well, to kill someone or blow something up or both.

Not only that, but that minimalist use of sound is repeated a few minutes later right after Ourumuv shoots Trevelyan. Bond slowly moving the cart laden with deadly canisters is one of the greatest moments in the franchise, and it works in no small part because of the squeaky wheel on the cart – for a few moments the scene is entirely silent except for that squeaky wheel. It is funny, it is serious, and it builds anticipation. The whole thing balances on the edge of a knife, and we know that sooner or later it has to teeter a bit too far, and the squeak of that wheel is it wobbling back and forth on the edge. Soon enough it breaks, guns blare and the music comes on, releasing the tension and opening the action once more.

Finally, when the pre-title sequence ends, it does so with just the first few notes the "GoldenEye" song playing out, letting us know once more that this is Bond. He has seen a friend die, he has made an amazing escape, and we have two more hours of excitement ahead of us. Buh-buh-buh-bum. Tina Turner's "GoldenEye" is a great Bond song, harkening back to those classic Shirley Bassey numbers. Buh-buh-buh-bum.

Ah, the new M. Judi Dench's first appearance as Bond's boss. Referred to by Bill Tanner as "The Evil Queen of Numbers," it is made clear that Bond existed here at MI6 before her arrival, he talks to her of her predecessor liking cognac; later, Zukovsky talks to Bond of "The new M." We get a little of this M's life (she has kids); we get a little about her seriousness (she will send Bond to die); and we get that even though they don't like each other and she sees Bond as "a relic of the Cold War," she knows he can do his job.

It is M who is going to bring Bond into the 21st Century. As setup in "GoldenEye," she is the way that the series is going to advance. Judi Dench's character has a significantly different relationship with Bond (both Craig and Brosnan) than Robert Brown or Bernard Lee's ever did, and I think that as we get to the present day in our rewatch, we're going to find that M is the way forward for the series. One huge question for Bond today is with "Skyfall"'s very old school ending/return of the former status quo, how things will progress. This is just one more thing that worries me about "Spectre," the ending of the last movie is great, but how do you reopen things. I expect Mendes has a plan.

Now, I don't want you to think that I find "GoldenEye" to be a perfect Bond movie, it isn't and I'll get to where it bothers me in a moment, but I do think it's fantastic. It has a suitably massive plot and it brings back the idea discussed in "A View to a Kill" about EMPs affecting electronics. It has fast cars, a tank chase, baccarat (they still used baccarat in it rather than poker), explosions, and a Double-0 gone bad.

Trevelyan is the anti-Bond and consequently a great villain. His existence as villain is the knife edge from the pre-title sequence again. Both Bond and Trevelyan have sat on the top of the edge, both with the ability to be good or evil. Bond tilts right and Trevelyan left, but there's another world in which it happens the other way, in which one of Bond's vendettas leaves him too badly bruised to continue in the same vein, just as Trevelyan's Lienz Cossack history, combined with his failure at the chemical facility, did to him. What if Tracy's death and Bond's obsession with Blofeld had worked out differently? What if M had tried to clamp down in a different way? Bond may have left the service and taken a very different path, a more Trevelyan path.

As for the bad with "Goldeneye," I have never, ever, understood the draining of the dish in Cuba. I think that they actually filled it in and ran the footage backwards. Watch the water go out of that thing. At the end, when there's only a tiny bit left, the water seems to decide to fly up into the air with nothing pushing it to do so. I don't think water behaves that way. Try playing it in reverse and tell me that doesn't look better. You'll find that it does. It is a sloppy moment in an otherwise brilliant movie.

Sadly for Brosnan, this is his best outing. From here, things get bigger and bigger and bigger until the series can't hide it anymore and has to go invisible (with a car). We will get there. Next week, Bond deals with some bad press as 007(x3) Weeks of 007 returns with "Tomorrow Never Dies."

photo credit: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

"The Martian" has Landed... or Will Soon

Some movies just amaze you, they blow you away.  It doesn't really matter if you've seen something else kind of, sort of, almost like them before, they just make it work.

Case in point, Matt Damon's "The Martian."  Or, maybe, it's Ridley Scott's "The Martian."  Scott certainly directed it and if we follow generally accepted auteur theory has to be given the credit for it, but it's Damon's portrayal of the lead character who makes the whole thing sing.  You can listen to someone else read my IGN review below (or click that link to read it yourself), but the upshot of it all is, "Wow, is this good.  Sure, there are issues, but wow."

It feels like every couple of years there is a film which cries out to be seen on the biggest screen available, and this year, that's "The Martian."  From the incredible Martian landscapes to the scenes in outer space, it just works on the big screen and, perhaps oddly as I don't really enjoy it generally speaking, in 3D.

As an aside and to follow-up on my earlier piece, I did not end up taking my daughter, not because I thought it would be inappropriate, simply because it was going to mean she got home too late on a school night.  I totally look forward to showing it to her in the near future.

Anyways, listen (or read) and enjoy.

photo credit: 20th Century Fox

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

"Lass is More" Looks at the new "Jumanji," "Zathura," and "Indian in the Cupboard" Blu-rays

Today, "Jumanji," "Zathura," and "The Indian in the Cupboard" all get swanky new Blu-ray "anniversary" editions.  What strikes me about them is that they perfectly encapsulate why I watch movies, not in terms of what they offer to the viewers on a cerebral or emotional level, but because they bring to life that which shouldn't come alive.

Confused?  That's okay.

Take a listen to the podcast, where I try and explain it all to you.

 As my ability to write about this has never been quite right, I'm not going to waste more words here trying it again.

photo credit: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment

Thursday, September 17, 2015

007(x3) Weeks of 007 #16 - "Licence to Kill"

It is a big day week here with 007(x3) Weeks of 007 as we discuss "Licence to Kill," the second—and final—Timothy Dalton movie. Why is this big? Because "Licence to Kill" is the first Bond movie I saw in the theater.

The shame of this being my first in theater Bond is that I was finally old enough to watch a Bond movie on the big screen and the franchise was about to take an extended break. Yup, following "Licence" it would be six years before the next Bond movie arrived, a massively long break for the franchise and things would be very different on the other end. But, let's not get ahead of ourselves, let's just deal with what this week has to offer.

First off, very early on in the movie we get another clue that Bond is always the same Bond no matter who is playing Bond – Felix Leiter explains to his new wife, Della, that Bond acted oddly when she suggested he might get married next as he was married once, a long time ago. Yes, you could again argue that maybe this Bond, too, was married and it didn't work out, just as Moore's Bond was and Lazenby's, but eventually you get to the point where you're doing those crazy backtracking things people who believed in the geocentric theory of the solar system had to do in order to explain the motion of planets and stars.

Occam's Razor. It doesn't always work out to be true, but all other things being equal, go with Occam's Razor.

Now, Della dies in the movie and does so on Leiter's wedding night. One of the things I've always wondered about that is what exactly it means. What does it say about Bond and Leiter that both of their marriages ended before they could really begin? The parallel is, of course, one of the reasons Bond takes this thing so badly, but I feel like the movie would be far more strong if they had really brought it to the fore.

The conversation between Leiter and Della should have been slightly longer, less cryptic, "He was married once, a long time ago." "I didn't know." "Of course not, he's very private about it. She died and it's something he's never gotten over."

Then, maybe, Leiter wakes up earlier in his hospital bed and has a chat with Bond before 007 heads down to Isthmus. Leiter tells Bond not to go, says it's not Bond's fight, that Della isn't Tracy and that Sanchez isn't that guy who must not be named due to long-running lawsuits who killed Tracy. Bond goes off anyway, something about avenging Della and Leiter and Tracy and stopping all the people in the world who would harm innocents.

I hate to rewrite Bond. I just feel like as stripped down as this movie is, they really could have done some things to bring it back into the fold. It requires more callbacks to the series and its history – M should acknowledge that Bond has done this sort of half-cocked crazy thing before and give him a "Now is not the time for one of your vendettas, 007, we need you in Turkey" or something similar. Instead, we get M playing with cats a la that guy who must not be mentioned. Odd choice for the movie, and definitely a callback but not the sort "Licence" desperately needs.

All of the elements for these callbacks are there already but they're just not overt enough. "Licence to Kill" feels like a different sort of movie than other Bond film, but it isn't. It is the "Diamonds are Forever" vendetta thing again; the two weeks vacation from "On her Majesty's Secret Service." It is the same set of Bond tropes, just in different packaging. They are even still going back to the novels what with Felix losing his leg. Heck, they've even gone back to the same Felix Leiter they used once before, and that's something franchise hasn't done to this point.

As for that packaging, oh, it definitely is different. Everybody loves Daniel Craig's Bond for being stripped down and not caring about things like whether his vodka martini is shaken or stirred, but if you look at those movies now, especially "Skyfall," it's the Bond we've always known. Look at Dalton's Bond, the way he dresses for various operations in this film, the way he goes about doing his job, it makes Craig feel like Dalton-lite, even in Craig's first outing.

"Licence to Kill" is full of odd choices. Anti-Bond choices. It feels like a deliberate move away from the character we know and love, and it isn't just the stuff above about being the same tropes we've seen before but refusing to acknowledge them or give more than a cursory mention of the character's history. It is so much more.

As an example, let's talk about Isthmus. They went with a fake city/country as Sanchez's home base. For a franchise that prides itself on going to exotic locales, they spend a lot of time here in a location that doesn't exist. It is one thing to have lairs that aren't real, but unless the claim is that all of Isthmus is Sanchez's private lair (it isn't, however corrupt it may be), why go with a fake location? It doesn't work for me, and is a weird choice for the series.

I can forgive that, odd though it may be. Less forgivable is the bar brawl.

Listen, I'm sorry, James Bond should not be involved in massive bar brawls, especially ones where there is chandelier swinging. There is something so horribly '80s about that moment, it's a level that even the synth-pop in "The Living Daylights" doesn't attain.

Then, Bond even gets caught between two different women at the end of the movie. That, too, feels a little out of place even if Q is great watching it all unfold and shaking his head as if to say, "Well, it had to happen sooner or later."

In the end, the Dalton years feel almost like an experiment, a getting ready for Craig (even if Brosnan is in between). They are asking what makes a Bond movie a Bond movie and how to update the character, yet again. I like the movies (save the bar brawl and synth-pop) and feel like Dalton didn't get his full time in as the character. That he didn't get to put his stamp on Bond and really only grazed the surface of what he could have brought to the role.

More movies were not in the cards for Dalton and consequently, next week things will be vastly different for us once more. 007(x3) Weeks of 007 will return with "GoldenEye."

photo credit: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

How Young is too Young: "E.T." Follow-up and "The Martian"

Last week I spent some time wondering whether my son was old enough to go watch "E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial" in a movie theater. I pointed out that my son exhibits a lot of empathy, a lack of knowledge of how stories are constructed, and is easily scared. Those were all in the "against" column for going to see it, with "it's 'E.T.'" being on the big one in the "for" column.

The latter column won, we went, and I'm happy to report it was an unqualified success. No less than half of the film saw my son sitting at the edge of his seat, staring at the screen in wonder. He loved it. In fact, at the end of the film he reported the he "liked the whole thing" and that's rather new for him as most of the other films he's seen have had moments where he has definitely wanted to leave early.

So, the question becomes why. Why did this work for him when other movies haven't worked as well. Is it the movie? Is it that he's older? Is it that in order to make sure he didn't have a complete breakdown during the film he was extensively prepped about what was going to happen?

The smart money would be on all of these things. Right movie at the right time for which he was prepared in the right way and the end result of that is perfection.

The truth though is that just because it worked here and now that doesn't mean that it can work always and I'm struggling still with "Jurassic Park" and whether that's appropriate for my daughter. She is going, but I still don't know if that's right.

It isn't just that one movie either, it's the next one after that and the next one after that. There is a constantly progressing set of decisions and no sooner do I make one – yes to "Jurassic Park" than another comes up, how about "The Martian?"

Not only that, but there's a question of order of operations on making the decision. Should I struggle with it if my child isn't even going to want to see the movie anyway and therefore first ascertain whether they're interested? Or, should I not broach the subject with the child if they're not going to be allowed to go anyway?

"The Martian" brings up another complete set of issues as there aren't a ton of reviews out for it and I haven't seen it. If I took my daughter, it would be to a press screening and that means that I probably won't have more information before I go (I did ask Twitter, but my following isn't great enough to necessarily get a response).

See? There is a constantly progressing set of decisions, and our media choices are expanding which means that the number of decisions required is also expanding.

Well, I say that, but eventually there aren't a set of decisions. Eventually I lose all power to make those decisions and that only means that the responsibility now is greater, formative years and all that.

But, like one of my children's favorite character says, with great power comes great responsibility. 

photo credit: 20th Century FOX