Teen Titans

I enjoyed the "Teen Titans" series when it was on television well enough to get the DVDs for it years ago, Seasons 1 through 5, and my children love it, too. The show was well-written and the gleeful animation of it completely works. I'll never understand why Cartoon Network spiked this popular series -- as I see it, if the show is popular, that's what a station wants, right? The show ran beautifully through its seasons, building into an ever-more impressive narrative arc by Season 5, and then *POOF* -- done. Just when things were getting really good. There's the "Teen Titans in Japan" animated movie, which is the swan song of the series, and is good as well, but going through these season is always a good time, and no matter how many times I've seen them, I enjoy them just as much. They're in a stylized DC universe, with only the Titans in evidence, hero-wise (although there are a couple of coy nods to Batman in it, and a reference or two to Metropolis, everything centers around the Titans). The show is funny, the characters are great, the stories are compelling, and the animation completely works for it. They could have mined another few seasons easily from all the raw material they had in this show, so I'll never get why it just stopped. Your kids'll love it, and you'll likely enjoy it, too.

Samurai Jack (2001-2004)

I used to watch this show when it was first out, and enjoyed it then. I have since revisited it with my boys, who love it, too. Ultimately an action series, with the fights between Jack and various adversaries as the centerpiece, the show is a very satisfying exercise in cinematic style and retro animation that leads you along pleasantly. The attention to details is marvelous, even with the comparatively simply drawn animated cells -- it's kind of reminiscent to me of games that are scaled down to liquid crystal or ASCII formats, or Lego stop-motion renderings of movie scenes, shot for shot -- there is this wonderful attention to detail in the episodes, despite the seemingly low-tech animated canvas. The action sequences are alternately beautiful, poignant, thrilling, bracing, and often unforgettable. They can be watched over and over again. And the late Mako's delightful voiceover work as Aku, the prime nemesis of Jack (voiced by Phil LaMarr, when Jack talks at all), anchors it so well. If you haven't seen this series, and you enjoy animation, you would do well to watch it, because few animated series have ever been as bold in execution as "Samurai Jack." The animators have the patience to let scenes carry themselves, to linger on frames, all sorts of things in a style that hearkens back to artier movies of the 70s. Never frenetic, "Samurai Jack" is a very, very satisfying series, well worth anybody's time.

The Road

I finished reading Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" -- having read it a year or so after seeing the movie, and I wasn't as impressed as perhaps I thought it'd be. I think McCarthy's a kind of Literary King Midas, where the plaudits come raining down like doubloons upon him, above and beyond what he actually does. The book is a downer -- one, long, dreary slog through a doomed world, like a hike undertaken by literal Holocaust survivors. There is an element of human vanity running through this book like beef jerky -- as if Man actually would have the power to destroy the world. There is a thanatotic notion that if we're going to go as a species, we'll be damned sure to take the world with is. But really, humanity will only succeed in extinguishing itself, if we're dumb enough (or crazy enough) to take that road -- life will go on without us. It has before, it will again. For literary audiences, however, I guess such a narrative conceit is catnip, which is why this book was so overpraised and over-awarded.

It's not a bad book, I guess; but it is a dismal one. The writing is unadorned and spare to the point of being almost nonexistent, and while there are some phrase turns here and there that are reasonably nice, the writing's not that good. Sacrilege, I know, but there it is. Some of his imagery stumbles over its own feet here and there, in his effort for an evocative image. For example...

And on the far shore a creature that raised its dripping mouth from the rimstone pool and stared into the lights with eyes dead white and sightless as the eggs of spiders.

Now, you might read that and go "Oooh, how evocative is that?" But I was like "Hmm, sightless as the eggs of spiders?" Unconvincing, affected. He doesn't do quotation marks or much in the way of capitalization and punctuation, and the dialogue goes like this for all of it...

Did you have any friends?
Yes. I did.
Lots of them?
Yes.
Do you remember them?
Yes. I remember them.
What happened to them?
They died.
All of them?
Yes. All of them.
Do you miss them?
Yes. I do.
Where are we going?
We're going south.
Okay.

That's how all of the dialogue goes throughout it. The story's about a dying dad taking his innocent young son down a road to some supposedly better place (although where it is is unsure; they're vagabonds), hiding from cannibal tribes and other desperadoes, although like all Litfic works, this is secondary to the larger narrative. The withered-apple plot is secondary to the depiction of the ruined world, although because the man in it (he has no name we get to see, nor does his boy) isn't terribly reflective, we don't really see what he thinks of the end of the world. There's mostly a grim disappointment on the part of the guy, as he tries to keep "the fire" of civilization burning in the hearts of himself and his son, with his son offering a moral counterpoint to the father's failure to live up to his own ideals in the conditions of the world.



I found the movie to be far more affecting than the book. Maybe it's because the desultory gray tones of the movie and the acting was stronger than McCarthy's writing -- it's difficult to evocatively portray endless dreariness and doom, akin to writing a dirge, perhaps, and just sustaining that long monotone of mourning. In the movie, the horror and ugliness of the world is right up there for the taking, and draws you in, whereas in a book, the words fall flat and while the imagery is there, it is endless imagery of ash and gray and death and doom, and the lack of much to juxtapose this leaves the reader somewhat pummeled into aesthetic submission -- yes, the world sucks, we get it. Nature, red in tooth and claw, we get it. Death everywhere, got it. It becomes a parlor game of how the ongoing sameness of doom can be portrayed in novel ways.

I won't go with where he goes with it, although there is no new thematic ground covered in it, no grand insights beyond "Life's a bitch and then you die." If anybody but Cormac McCarthy had written this, it probably wouldn't have been published. It's not a bad book; it's an adequate book. Certainly not a Great Book(tm). In a hundred years, I don't think it's going to speak to people with any kind of narrative power; then again, in a hundred years, maybe nobody'll be reading books anymore--maybe nobody will be left to read'em.

Bad Moon (1996)

I picked up this movie in a cheapie bin, because I'm a sucker for werewolf movies, and was pleasantly surprised by what is a pretty decent werewolf movie -- I'd give it a B+ to be honest. It's a small movie, and is fairly straight and to the point. I was surprised to see Michael Paré in it, and Mariel Hemingway, of all people. Set in the Pacific Northwest, it follows a single stay-at-home mom who is some kind of lawyer (it appears to require a lot of telecommuting and use of a laptop). She and her son and their dog, the German Shepherd, Thor, live in an upper-middle class kind of redoubt bordering on the woods. Her brother, Ted (played by Paré), is a lycanthrope, and basically the story spins off from there, as complications ensue, with the dog being an integral character in the course of the story (of course, the tip-off is in the opening credits, when you see that the source material is a book entitled "Thor" -- so, you figure the dog is going to be fairly prominent in it). The movie is written and directed by Eric "The Hitcher" Red, so you know it's somebody who at least has the understanding of how to craft suspense in a movie. The werewolf looks suitably monstrous, and is not CGI (although some computer graphics are used to show a transformation at the climax). The "real" presence of the werewolf in the scenes makes it more effective, in my view, despite the whole "Man in the Rubber Suit" effect. The monster looks convincing, and Mariel Hemingway looks suitably scared when things get out of hand. A small movie in terms of budget and aspirations, it ultimately achieves what it sets out to do; they could have probably added another 10 minutes to flesh out the principal characters' relationship with one another a bit more, or at least offer some kind of narrative conflict for when big sister realizes what her little brother's become. But overall, it's a satisfying werewolf movie, way better than I expected.

Ravenous (1999)

You know, "Ravenous" was a total flop -- all these years later, it's still not even come close to making its budget (maybe 1/6th of the way there). I remember it appearing, and disappearing from theaters almost immediately (I know because it was out one week and I thought "I should go catch this" and delayed and the next thing I knew, it was gone), but the concept of it appealed to me, and I watched it years ago (weird to think that 1999 is now a long time ago, really -- doesn't feel so long ago). Anyway, I think this movie will stand the test of time as a cult classic. Maybe it's not there, yet, maybe it'll languish in near-oblivion for another decade or so, or maybe folks'll see it and appreciate it.

I love this movie. The setting of it (19th century, in the California wilderness, although shot in Slovakia, it really does look COLD there, and that isolation works well), and the nice playing with the Wendigo legend, fusing it with maybe a bit of "Dracula" and notions of Manifest Destiny, and getting good performances out of a number of actors, to say nothing of the marvelous black humor that runs right through this movie -- it's really, really good, and I never get why more people haven't seen it or bothered to catch it. Director Antonia Bird doesn't necessarily shoot thrillingly (although she does convey good atmospheric shots here and there), and there are some continuity errors here and there in it, but overall, the movie doesn't just hold together; it's classic horror, with a bit of a twist here and there.

Guy Pearce plays Captain John Boyd, a reluctant (one might say cowardly -- a theme that runs throughout the movie) war hero who is sent to a distant fort in California, where he runs into the odd group of locals at Fort Spencer, in the Sierra Nevada ranges. There, they encounter Colqhoun (played wonderfully, with beady-eyed intensity, by Robert Carlyle), this stranger with a ghastly tale of cannibalism that is reminiscent of the Donner Party. And things go into freefall soon thereafter. I won't throw any spoilers into this, as the movie has some nice twists and turns. Pearce's Boyd is a fairly introverted, tortured character, and, as far as protagonists go, is fairly weak -- I imagine this turned off audience goers, who might've resonated with a stronger hero -- but Boyd does find his strength as the movie progresses, and understands what he must do to prevail over the Evil he faces. Boyd rises to the occasion (and, again, this might've bothered the audiences who saw it, who likely craved a happier ending).

The movie is well-shot and well-paced, and certain scenes will stay with you forever -- not even from outright bloodshed (certainly, blood is spilled in this movie, but never for its own sake) -- but it's the implications in the carnage here and there, the suggestion of what's going on, that carries the weight, and it makes this a superb, even smart horror movie. Not a slasher film, not an ironic, smarmy meta-horror, and not an exercise in pure terror (thinking of "The Strangers," here) -- "Ravenous" is, instead, a Grade-A horror film that takes you on a grim and haunting excursion. It's not a perfect movie, but it's far, far better than its dismal reception would leave you to believe). I've watched this movie a number of times, and it always manages to rope me in. Something about the setting, the time period, the good characterizations, the villainy of the Bad Guy -- all of it makes for an intoxicating and memorable horror film.

If you haven't seen it (and odds are you haven't, since, again, this movie was a total flop), you owe it to yourself to catch it. So much of what passes for horror these days is basically torture porn, or is an exercise in brutality -- "Ravenous" is, instead, a smart horror movie that has some nice, nasty reversals throughout it, and some curious implications woven within it.

Hero Factory

I have generally avoided themed Lego products -- I favor the more generic sets, but on a whim, I got one of the Hero Factory figures, and, in short order, got several of them. The good guys are all alternately Iron Man types -- like people in exo-suits, or else cyborgs. They all have amusingly prissy names like "Preston" and so on, versus their badass call names, like "Surge" and what-not.



Anyway, what sold me on these is how articulated they are -- the ball-and-socket joints make them truly fully poseable in a way I haven't seen since the old Micronauts toys of the 70s. And they're sturdily built, easy-to-assemble, and are modular, offering any number of iterations and permutations. The Heroes have a group of villains to take on, like Meltdown, the Corroder, etc. My boys love'em, and we get a lot of play out of them. Again, the highly articulated frames make them wonderful to move around and pose. Fun to assemble (and, by and large, easy to assemble, not too many pieces), and fun to play with, too. Pleasant surprise.

Nerf Clear Series

Is it un-PC to love toy guns? I dunno. I got my boys a couple of Nerf Clear Series dart pistols (a Maverick and an EX-3). They're very cool. A great look to them, seeing the inner workings, and they are surprisingly powerful and accurate, well-designed. They shoot either suction cup-tipped Nerf foam darts, or Velcro-tipped Nerf foam darts. The suction cups are my favorites, because they stick in a perpendicular fashion on the target, if it allows for suction cups to adhere to them. The action of the Maverick (which is a six-shooter, looking like a clear version of something Robocop or Agent Smith would use, or possibly one of the Men In Black), anyway, it's very smooth, with the slide cocking it, allowing for rapid fire if you "fan" it like you would a single-action revolver, cowboy-style. The only fault I saw with it is if you don't load the cylinder perfectly (which itself is easy to do, generally), you can get a jam. But if it's loaded properly, it'll fire very rapidly, and accurately.

The EX-3 resembles a machine pistol, and fires a single shot (you draw back the bolt and fire), and it had room for two additional darts in storage in the front. What's more, it has an LED light on the front acting as a laser gunsight, which is powered by 2 AA batteries that load in the handle. The EX-3 is smaller than the mighty Maverick, but is no less powerful or accurate (and, despite it being a single shot, you can load it more quickly than the Maverick, which can be a consideration for kids playing Nerf Wars or whatever). One drawback of the EX-3 that I found is that the contact that triggers the LED is very delicate, and can be jarred loose with rough play (and it's next to impossible to fix, just because the piece is so tiny). But given the low price of the gun, it is otherwise very well-made and feels right, has the right amount of heft.

There are larger Clear Series rifles and what-not, but I haven't played with those (yet). The pistols, however, are a real blast.

These are, I gather, limited edition Nerf toy guns, so get'em while you can, I guess. They are very cool, fun to play with, and have a great feel to them and a futuristic style. They handle nicely and are durable, and the range is impressive.

But definitely watch out about shooting in the face, because despite the easy action of these toy guns, they are surprisingly powerful, and you can fire them accurately clear across a room and hit what you're aiming at.