Reviews

"Ask the Storybots" was an exceptional show that explained often-complex topics through accessible but not dumbed-down stories, with the occasional humorous aside. "Answer Time" is an okay show in which the humorous asides have become the main course and the deep-dive explanations are now relegated to a supporting role.

Case in point: The electricity episode of the original show was one of the series' best. Instead of stopping at the power plant - which would have been a logical place to stop to satiate the curiosity of a child - they spent the whole C-block of the episode explaining electricity on the atomic level. No other show would have taken that step, least of all "Answer Time." This show would have spent those last 7 minutes bouncing frenetically among three unrelated songs.

This "Answer" reboot isn't bad; most of the voice talent is still there and the celebrity cameos pull their weight. But I don't get why they shifted the format away from what made it great. Answering a hard question in 20 minutes for the benefit of a 6-year-old (and the occasional adult...) was unique and really fun. "Answer Time" is an ADHD version of its predecessor that jumps around too much instead of just answering the question.

"Answer Time" is still better than most of what's out there, but man, why experiment when you already caught lightning in a bottle? It's like someone doing a decent impression of a really good show; it's worth watching, but it makes you long for the original.

My kids. I mean it makes my kids long for the original.

Only in Hollywood could they take the life of Hugh Glass - a man whose story needs no embellishment to rate as "astonishing" - and subvert it to the point of disgrace. Using the rough outline of the Glass arc, this movie adds absurd and, more vitally, totally unnecessary plot lines about sex slave Indian daughters and martyred, fictional sons and all manner of other rote plot devices in order to - I guess? - try and dramatize a story about a guy who *literally* crawled 200 miles without skin on his back in order to save his own life. As if Hugh needed the posthumous help.

Hardy might win an Oscar for his excellent performance as foil and I'm sure Leo will get plenty of hype for grunting his way through 150 minutes. But man, they're both just shadows cast behind a movie that could have been great.

The writers could have fictionalized a plot loosely based on Glass's life and rightly called it fiction. Or they could have made a great movie about what actually happened and sold it as truth. Instead, they manage go wrong in both directions. "The Revenant" dishonors Hugh Glass, disrespects its audience, and desecrates a tale worth being told much better than this. Your time would be better spent sleeping inside a dead horse.

Four times in as many movies, Blue Sky Studios has proved itself a distant third when it comes to CGI film-making. Like the Ice Age movies before it, Horton Hears a Who coasted on the big-name talent behind the mic, ignoring the clever styling and over-their-heads adult humor that have made Pixar -- and, to a lesser extent, Dreamworks -- so successful. All in all, your kids will probably be entertained for 90 minutes, but Horton really is nothing more than cinematic cotton candy: empty calories and completely forgettable.

As for the cast, Carell shows a real flair for voice-over work, while Carrey's performance left something to be desired. One doesn't realize how much of his shtick involves facial expressions, which don't come through very well on an elephant's computerized visage. The lesser players -- notably Isla Fisher -- turn in some very good work.

The animation was fair, but nowhere near the quality or detail of a Pixar pic. But the real problem with Horton was the dialog. It just wasn't funny. Even the small children in the audience laughed only occasionally, and I chuckled only once during the movie's thankfully short run-time. Perhaps the writers felt compelled to remain true to Seuss's original work, as they seemed to add very little originality and a whole lot of benign filler.

So unless you're dying to get the kids out of the house and don't mind dropping $10 a head at your local AMC, wait for Horton to hit the bargain bin and save for you money for WALL-E this summer.

When I first saw the preview, V for Vendetta looked like it was going to be great. 1984 is one of my favorite books and I loved The Matrix and The Matrix Reloaded. It appeared that all the elements of a truly great film were there, and the preview left me counting the days until this movie opened.

What a difference a viewing makes.

I left the theater angered; not only because the message of the film was simply appalling, but also because V could easily have been everything I had hoped for. Since seeing the movie last night, I've looked into the situation regarding Alan Moore and his reasons for dissociating himself with this interpretation of his work, and his opinions have only redoubled my initial feelings.

What Moore created in his graphic novels was paradoxical meeting of polar opposites – anarchy vs. fascism – leaving the audience to judge who was right and who was wrong. What the Wachowski's have done in their bastardized version is play fast and loose with details while trying to force the round peg of their liberal politics into the square hole of Moore's original work. The result, not surprisingly, doesn't fit.

Subtlety is thrown to the wind as the brothers make their point painfully obvious. From the "Coalition of the Willing" poster juxtaposed against a swastika, to the "religious," "conservative" politician who rules the movie's landscape, to the superfluous subplot of a government vendetta (small "v") against homosexuals, the nuance and innuendo of movies like The Matrix are nowhere to be found. The makers of V are not nearly as concerned with a dystopian view of the future as they are with the petty politics of the here and now.

In the end, V for Vendetta comes off as a thinly veiled attack on the Bush Administration. Say what you will about Michael Moore, at least he respects his audience enough to say what he means. V pays no such respect, instead choosing to convey an anti-American, "yeah for the suicide bombers" message that's as insulting as it is disgusting.

Alan Moore's poetic vision of a hyperbolic clash between ultra-left and ultra-right is nowhere to be found in this disappointing film. V may be for vendetta, but T is certainly for travesty.

As the movie started, I was trying to compare it to Animal House. Many of the basics are very similar, and the previews even encourage this analogy. As the movie progressed, however, I realized that American Pie is a much more apt comparison. The movie was a good, solid film, with lots of humorous parts. But when compared on a comedic level to Animal House or Christmas Vacation, it falls well short. Ryan Reynolds is hilarious, and definitely turns a pretty week story line into an entertaining movie. I really did like the movie, it just was not up to the National Lampoon films of past.