Monday, November 28, 2011

Review: The Muppets

Quick Version: Loved it, go see it, give them your money.

Long Version:

I've read a lot of reviews of The Muppets (2011) over the last few days. Most of them begin with the author explaining how much the Muppets mean to him/her personally. One reviewer was surprised to remember that it was Jim Henson and his Muppets that taught him how to read and write in the first place. If you've been reading those reviews as well, then I apologize, because I too feel the need to regale everyone with how the Muppets influenced me.

There might be some young men and women around who remember being kids in summer camp when their counselor (me) would make up wild action-adventure stories to tell them. There might be video of me performing Shakespeare and dancing in Elvis's rhinestone jumpsuit during a very ill-advised production of Alice in Wonderland.  I thank heaven that this happened before social media. But somewhere buried in my parents' basement might be home video of something far more telling - my sister and I putting on a show during the holidays. Every year I would rope her (and whatever other young kids were around) into singing and dancing for our families. Why was I so obsessed with putting on a show? Why did I love that more than anything else? Because of the Muppets.

I was two years old when I saw The Muppets Take Manhattan in the theater in 1983. It was my first movie. But as nothing made as big an impact as when I saw the original, The Muppet Movie (1979). It was about Kermit the Frog, who wanted nothing more than to entertain people, to put on a show with singing and dancing and comedy. So he traveled and recruited his friends to perform. He planted the idea in my head that life is best seen as a show with your friends and loved ones as the players, and that nothing feels better than putting that show on, making people laugh and smile. That's why I made the neighborhood kids act on my living room stairs. That's why I wrote plays in third and fourth grade that the whole class had to perform. It's why I made a Spanish-language action movie about Costa Rica instead of a two page essay in high school.

So it's been three paragraphs and we've yet to formally address The Muppets (2011). As I said above, the quick and dirty version is that I loved it, you should go see it. Add to their box office gross so the Muppets can be all over TV and movies again. The longer version required the paragraphs above so the reader can understand what I (and so many others) brought with them into the theater.

The Muppets pretends that the characters have done nothing since Manhattan in 1983. It paints them as a forgotten act that has disbanded and gone on with their lives, with the exception of Kermit who doesn't seem to do much of anything. When the old Muppet Studios is in danger of being demolished, Kermit must reunite the old gang to put on a show once again in order to save the studio. I won't spoil the details of where and in what shape Kermit finds his friends, but it is an enjoyable ride. The resulting show is a hilarious, old-school tribute to "The Muppet Show" and the classic Muppet humor that made them famous in the first place. It's got jokes for kids and for adults; it never forgets who its audience is.

The real treat here is watching how writer/star Jason Segel is able to properly balance the film. The Muppets represent a special time in the history of entertainment; they are eternally optimistic, warm and loving, with just a bit of an edge. They are never cynical or mean, rarely rude or vulgar, and always heartfelt. Segel had to entertain a modern, sometimes cynical audience with a classic act. Segel does this by way of self-referential humor, which abounds. He embraces the Muppets' musicality, paying homage to their classics ("The Rainbow Connection", "Mahna Mahna") as well as introducing new works ("Life's a Happy Song", "Pictures in My Head", "Man or Muppet") and covers of current and classic hits. You haven't lived until you've heard the Muppet Barbershop Quartet's version of "Here We Are Now" by Nirvana or the all-chicken version of "Forget You" by Cee-Lo.

It's not a perfect film. To be honest, I could have done without the majority of Segel's work as an actor. The original three Muppet movies were done without a human star (except for cameos). Why did this one need a human main character? I found myself wishing the focus would turn away from Segel's problems with his girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams, who plays a variation on her "innocent" character) so that we could get back to Kermit and the gang. On the other hand, when Segel performs "Man or Muppet," I nearly died laughing. Same goes for Chris Cooper's oil baron Tex Richman, who despite the dry character as written turned in a very funny performance and a fantastic rap sequence. I don't know, maybe there was a better way to do it without having Segel and Adams as such major characters.

Another problem for people who remember the Muppets from their childhood is the absence of Jim Henson and Frank Oz. Henson, of course, passed away in 1990 and took the original voices of Kermit, Rowlf and many others with him. But more distressing was Frank Oz, the voice of Fozzie and Miss Piggy and others, who decided not to be a part of the film because he didn't like the script. While the new performers make a valiant effort, something about the voices of Fozzie and Piggy just feels off. It won't be a problem for new fans and it's something the rest of us are going to have to get over, but it was a bit disturbing.

The Muppets (2011) is not a perfect movie, but it is an awesome one. The humor is dead on, the music is fun and the franchise is treated with the respect and passion it deserves. If nothing else, the movie proves that the Muppets are still hilarious, still relevant and deserve to be on television every week. Bring back "The Muppet Show"!

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Neither Country Nor Rock and Roll

Note: This entry is about the difficulty of navigating political conversations when one has family and friends in varying political camps. All are welcome to comment, but please keep it civil.

A personal blog is very much like a family gathering or a work-related function. There are three subjects that one should never, ever bring up: (1) Sex, (2) Religion, and (3) Politics. Mentioning any of these three things invites a world of trouble. This is true, of course, for the entire internet. Up until now this page has kept itself confined to low-brow humor and movie reviews. But today I'm afraid I must attempt to carefully skirt the edge of topic # 3, talking around it but not about it directly.

Let me show you what I mean.

My own political alignment is difficult to define. Confined to the American political system, I refuse to subscribe to the complete agendas of either major political party. I likewise refuse to spell out my political views here. I would no more broadcast my political philosophy than I would my precise salary or pants size (both seem to vary with the phase of the moon). I will say that I am socially liberal, lest anyone should throw the word "bigot" around. I believe that all people should be free to do as they desire so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Other than that, though, suffice it to say that I am neither Democrat nor Republican, liberal nor conservative.

With that said, I find myself increasingly uncomfortable talking about politics with my friends and family. I avoid the topic if at all possible. If it comes up in a group, I stay quiet for as long as I can. If someone directly asks me my thoughts on one issue or another, they might see me visibly cringe before attempting a heavily-prefaced, heavily-quantified answer. The problem isn't that I'm uninformed or uninterested. I won't claim to be deeply knowledgable about everything, but I read and watch and listen as much as possible. Rather, the problem is that I am neither liberal enough for liberals nor conservative enough for conservatives.

Let me rephrase. Amongst liberals, I am a fascist right-wing nutjob. Amongst conservatives, I am a bleeding-heart communist hippie. I lose either way.

Example. One of my best friends has a brother who is passionately liberal and possibly anarchist. He is a man who prides himself on having been arrested several times while participating in protests. I won't try to explain his views here, firstly because I won't pretend to know or understand them all, and because any such attempt would over-simplify and cheapen a man whose opinions I respect. But when talking to him I get the impression that in his eyes, I am everything that is wrong with the world. I am employed (by the government, no less), I exist above the poverty line. I literally represent law and order. But I feel like to him, what I see as personal economic responsibility and the right to the fruits of one's success come off as corruption and greed.

On the other hand, I know several people who are very conservative. People who strongly believe in a completely free-market, that people should fend for themselves, and that the government should stay out of their wallets. They believe that they (as employed people paying taxes) are beeing fleeced by the poor and the people gaming the system. My defense of certain social programs, infrastructure and the general concept behind taxation make me a socialist, a commie-pinko (I had to look it up) who wants to give all their money away to those who don't work and don't contribute.

I don't begrudge my loved ones their varying views. One of the best things about my life is that I've been lucky enough to be able to gather such a wide range of friends. Name a profession, any profession, and odds are I have a friend in the field. Likewise, I'm proud to know people who come from both sides of the political aisle and seemingly everywhere inbetween. That's really cool. But being caught in the middle is no fun. You end up feeling like everyone's enemy and eventually you just don't talk at all for fear that speaking your mind will ruin a relationship.

Anyone have problems like this?

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Noble Origins

Funny how the meaning of a name can change...

Monday, August 29, 2011

Review: Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Ah, Planet of the Apes. Cultural icon. One of Charlton Heston's most notable roles. It's created some of our favorite jokes over the years. Who could forget "Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!" or "It's a mad house! A mad house!" or, of course, "You maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"

Well, that was 1968. That film spawned no less than three sequels of declining quality. Then the series went dead fora decade or two. In 2001, Tim Burton tried to remake the original, sans its awesome final twist, but the less said about that film the better. Now, in 2011, we have Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Depending on your point of view, Rise is either an out-and-out prequel or a remake of Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, one of the lesser sequels. And you know what? It's pretty good.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) is about Caesar (Andy Serkis), an ape who as a result of medical experimentation is born with vastly increased intelligence. I say that the movie is about Caesar because despite the presence of some big-name actors in the film, Caesar appears to be the only fully-developed character. Here's the set-up. Will Rodman (James Franco) is a geneticist desperate to cure his ailing father (John Lithgow) of Alzheimers disease. To that end, he has created a drug that allows the brain to repair itself. A side-effect of this drug is that the brain continues to build even after it's repaired, leading to increased intelligence. Caesar is one of the first apes to benefit from the drug's effects. We follow Caesar's life as he is raised amongst humans, discovers he is not one of them, and struggles to find his place in the world.

I don't want to give anything away here. I enjoyed the film and I wholeheartedly recommend it, if only to watch Andy Serkis at work. The man has a history of great performances, from The Lord of the Rings (Gollum) to King Kong (uh, Kong), but they're all outshined by his work here. Serkis's Caesar is a living breathing primate, but also so much more. CGI has still only come so far, but Serkis makes us believe in the character nonetheless. Here is a CGI character with eyes that actually feel alive; you can actually watch the character working things out without a word spoken. One of the best parts of the film is watching Caesar learn to interact with other primates becoming a leader on the strength of his wit.

The other actors are competent, but ultimately unremarkable. Franco does a good-enough job as the scientist with a personal stake in his work. He's played as a bit of a milque-toast character, all compassion but very little personality. Frida Pinto as his girlfriend Caroline, however, is wasted. She's there simply because without her, there wouldn't be a single female character in the film. She adds nothing to the proceedings. John Lithgow does an excellent job with his limited screentime as Will's father. Lithgow is a gifted actor and it shows as he makes his conrfused character pitiable but avoids annoyance. David Oyelowo plays Will's evil corporate boss (because anything that's for-profit must be evil), who of course gets his, and rounding out the cast is the venerable Brian Cox (X-Men 2) as the owner of an ape sanctuary where Caesar cuts his teeth in battles against the owner's son, played by that master of screen bullies, Tom Felton (Harry Potter's Draco Malfoy). Cox and Felton are missed opportunities for greatness as well. Cox in particular is almost non-existent, muttering a line here and there as he stumbles through the film.

Despite the wasted cast, the film itself is quite good; it addresses nearly all of the problems lurking in its premise. Problems such as: How many apes can Caesar actually gather and make smarter in a few days? Even after they start rebelling, can't we just shoot them down? Even if they get away, won't we just hunt them down eventually? There aren't that many of them! How can a few genetically-altered apes take over the whole world? Have a little faith. The film addresses these things very well.

So again, I recommend this movie. Go, enjoy.

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

De Oratore

Sometimes, verbage is everything.

The Olive Garden, that cesspool of imitation Italian cuisine, recently ran an advertisment that has been bugging me. Just as a side note, Olive Garden sucks. Their bread is cardboard and their pasta is drowned in crappy imitation sauces. I believe my friend Johnathan Cartelli once told me that the only way he'd ever bring his grandfather to Olive Garden would be if he was punishing him for something, or if he wanted to kill him. I can't remember; with John it could have been either. Or both.

In any event, the Garden recently ran an advertisement for their never-ending pasta bowl (another testament to our ever-fattening society). You can watch the ad here. It begins with a bunch of young decently attractive people sitting around a table at the titular restaurant, and their conversation goes something like this:
Man: That movie was great.
Woman: I know, I never wanted it to end.
Hold it, wait. What? The group moves on to talk about the meal ("Well at least the pasta is never ending!"), but I can't. I have to address this. What did she mean she never wanted it to end? There are at least two possibilities that I can think of.

First, there's the possibility that she wanted the movie to never end. In other words, she wanted that particular film to go on ad infinitum, consuming her entire life and continuing onwards even after her death. And my friends, her death in this situation would not be pretty. Her wish would have doomed her to watching this film for the rest of her days, forsaking food and drink, use of the restroom and personal hygiene (she looks like the kind of person who wouldn't dare sneak out of the theater to use the bathroom - and we all know people who swing the other way on this one). She would end up a stinky emaciated lifeless husk, her rubbery flesh melded into the theater seat and her image-bombarded eyeballs long receded from their sockets. I don't think she meant this, and if she was granted this wish, one would only hope that she would immediately regret the horror she had inflicted upon herself, her friends and the other moviegoers. So let's put possibility one to rest.

Possibility two is probably the one she meant. I think it's far more likely, anyway. Possibility two is that she meant to say this: At no point during the film did she actively want it to be over. This is not a glowing review of a film, people. It doesn't mean the film was great. It doesn't even mean it was good. It simply meant that this lady managed to sit through the whole thing without begging for it to end. That's a ridiculous way to review a film. It's a ridiculous way to evaluate anything. That would be like having a coversation like this:
Man: Hey, your friend Leo is a great friend.
Me: I know, I've never wanted him dead.
That doesn't mean he's a great friend. That simply means that I've never actively prayed for his death. It means I wouldn't kill my friend Leo for a quarter and a Snickers bar. And you know what? That's not even true. I totally would.

Here's what really happened. The man in the commercial was trying to start a nice conversation. "That movie was great," he said. He was trying to get a discussion going. And what did she do? The speaking equivalent of puking on his shoes. She said nothing of substance. Worse, her asinine comment steered the conversation away from the movie and towards the food! The lady across from her says, "Hey, at least the pasta is never-ending." And that's it. Everyone laughs and the conversation that guy wanted to have about the movie is dead in the water. Watch that guy for the rest of the commerical - he is not happy. He looks at her at the very end - I wonder if he's thinking in words or if it's just a red murderous haze at that point.

Verbage is important, people. That commercial's been in my head all morning. Makes me hungry. Maybe I'll have Italian tonight.

Friday, August 5, 2011

Time Warner Cable is the Salesman from Family Guy

For over a month, my cable box has been unplugged. It's still sitting where it's always been, nestled nice and neat on the shelf beneath my TV, snuggled between by Xbox 360 and my Playstation 3. If I wanted to, I could use it to watch cable, in HD no less. But a month ago, I decided to conduct an experiment. I unplugged the cable box, took out the HDMI cable, and let it sit. I wanted to see how long I could go without watching. Turns out I can go indefinitely.

I undertook this experiment when I realized that the $120 I was paying per month for Time Warner Cable and Internet was ricockulous and was bleeding me dry. Having concluded that I can easily live without cable TV service, I called Time Warner this morning in order to cancel cable and continue with internet only. A very nice woman (let's call her "Tina") answered the phone, and the conversation went something like this:

Tina: Time Warner Cable, my name is Tina, ask me how you can save by getting our triple play deal, how can I help you?

Adam: Hi, Tina. I'd like to cancel my cable subscription and continue with internet only.

Tina: Okay well I'm very sad to hear that. Could you tell me why you're choosing to downgrade your services?

Adam: $120 a month to watch TV just seems like a bit much, especially when I can get all my content online.

Tina: Okay. Well what channels do you usually watch?

Adam: That's... embarrassing. Mostly, ah... Cartoon Network.


Adam: ...Yeah.

Tina: ... And, um, you're paying $120 now?

Adam: That's right.

Tina: Well let's see, what if we could do a promotional offer for you? What if we could take $10 off of your bill every month, so you'd be paying $107?

Adam: That's.... wait, what?

Tina: It'd be a promotional offer for two years.

Adam: I don't know. You'd have to go significantly below $100 for me to even think -

Tina: What if we could give you the same services you have now for $89 per month?

Adam: What? You can do that?

Tina: As a promotional offer, we can give you two years at that rate.

I want you to think about what this means. This means that if you call to cancel your cable subscription, they can offer to drop your bill by over $30 per month. Taking that string of logic a bit further, it means that they are overcharging us by at least $30 per month simply because they can, because we don't complain.

I did not take Tina up on her offer. With internet service for $50 per month and a Roku 2 XS, I'll be able to watch anything I want in HD.

Monday, June 27, 2011


Today is a good day. Today I am proud to be an American, a New Yorker and an attorney. Today our nation, the United States of America, has taken a huge step forward in the area of human rights and liberties. We should all be proud to be a part of it. I am speaking, of course, about the Supreme Court's declaration today that video games are protected speech under the first amendment.

Why, did something else happen?

In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S ____ (2011), decided June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision struck down California Assembly Bill 1179 (2005), which forbade the sale of "violent video games" to minors and imposed a fine for each violation. It marks the end of a 6-year legal battle between the State of California and the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) and a significant victory for freedom of expression in entertainment. The full decision can be read here. Why is this a big deal? What's so bad about forbidding the sale of "evil" materials to minors? Let's break it down.

Taken from the opinion of the court, California Assembly Bill 1179 (2005) (which can be read here) prohibits the sale or rental of certain games to minors and requires their packaging to be labeled "18". The act covers games "in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being, if those acts are depicted" in a manner that "a reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors," that is "patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors," and that "causes the game, as a whole, to lack erious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors." 1746(d)(1)(A). Violation of the act is punishable by a civil fine of up to $1,000. 1746.3 The law was taken up by the ESA for a pre-enforcement challenge and the California Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. The Circuit Court for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, and we find outselves at the Supreme Court.

I can see where California is coming from. As an alleged adult and potential parent, I can understand wanting to protect my child from some of the more deplorable media available out there. To a certain extent, the standard California was attempting to apply here is comparable to the standard that states in the past have attempted to apply to other media when classified as "obscenity." Production or promotion of "obscenity" has been criminalized but the California law stopped short of that, prohibiting only the sale of so-classified games to minors. In essence, it would have treated certain games like pornography.

Furthermore, studies have shown that those who enjoy video games are aging. The average gamer, according to this site, is now 37 years old and has been playing for at least 12 years and the average age of the most frequent game purchaser is 41 years old. That means that California's law (which, again, proposed only to restrict the sale of certain games to people under age 18) would not restrict the sale of electronic entertainment to its most active and passionate supporters.

The ESRB also has its own rating system, similar to that of the MPAA. Like the ratings attached to movies - PG-13, R, NC-17 - games have a similar system, self-imposed, running from E for everyone to AO for adults only. The ESA reports that 76% of all games sold in 2010 were rated "E" for Everyone, "T" for Teen, or "E10+" for Everyone 10+. Wikipedia reports that in the history of ESRB ratings, only 21 games have ever gotten the dreaded AO. None of these games have ever sold well (nor have they ever been reviewed well either). Just as certain movies have been damaged financially by an undeserved NC-17 rating, so too have games been damaged by an AO rating. The imposition of California's law (which could apply to games rated M as well) could widen this damage and lead skittish game companies to play it safe, depriving adults of their entertainment.

Luckily, the Supreme Court has alleviated this fear. The majority's opinion calls to attention the curious distinction America has made between depictions of sex and violence. The distribution of depictions of sexual content, according to the opinion, has long been restricted in this country as obscene. Had California's law been tailored to sexual content instead of violence, therefore, it appears that it would have had a greater chance of being upheld. The opinion then traces America's long history of attempts at censorship of violence. The majority wisely points out the graphic depictions of violence in childrens' books, from Grimm's Fairy Tales (did you know that the wicked queen in Snow White is forced to dance in red hot slippers until she dies?) to the Odyssey, to the Lord of the Flies (Piggy's murder). They then point to the attempts to ban everything from trashy novels to movies to radio dramas and comic books - each effort has eventually failed.

In the end, the Supreme Court declares that video games are protected speech under the first amendment. Therefore, a law can only restrict this speech based on its content if it passes the strict scrutiny test. The law must be justified by a "compelling government interest" and must be "narrowly drawn to serve that interest." California's law cannot pass this test. California cannot prove the existence of a link between violent video games and harm to children. They tried to do so by way of competing psychological studies, but the Court wisely concludes that these studies are deeply flawed. The studies show that violent video games produce the same psychological results as watching Bugs Bunny cartoons, playing Sonic the Hedgehog or viewing a photograph of a gun. As the court states, "California has (wisely) declined to restrict Saturday morning cartoons, the sale of games rated for young children, or the distribution of pictures of guns."

It comes down to the fact that the law is wildly underinclusive. "Here, California has singled out the purveyors of video games for disfavored treatment - at least when compared to booksellers, cartoonists, and movies producers - and has given no persusive reason why." They go on to talk about other things as well - about the ESRB's rating system and how the law doesn't really seem an effective way to assist parents who don't want their kids getting their hands on these things.

I could go on with this all day, as it's fascinating to me, but I have work to do. If you got this far and don't want to scroll up again, read the opinion here and let me know what you think.

Monday, March 14, 2011

Review: Battle Los Angeles

Oh hot damn.

A few years ago there was a huge clamor over the possibility of a movie based on the Halo games. Peter Jackson was involved, then Neil Blomkamp (District 9). Then the whole thing fell apart. People were pissed. They thought that a movie based on Halo would be epic and fantastic. And for everyone under that belief, for everyone who still believes that video game concepts make for awesome movies, my response is "No, they don't." Why not? Battle: Los Angeles.

Battle: Los Angeles (2011) is Independence Day (1996) told from the perspective of a single unit of marines. On the day before he is set to retire, Staff Sergeant Micheal Nantz (Aaron Eckhart) is called back into active service to lead Echo Company, 2nd battalion, 5th Marine regiment as they conduct an evacuation of western Santa Monica during what is thought to be a meteor shower. It doesn't take long for the marines to encounter the real threat and from then on the film is a constant barrage of action and suspense.

It's a video game on film. That's what it is and that's what you should expect from it. The sad part about that is that there are plenty of games with really good stories. But if you were to boil down the concept of a video game, a military shooter against aliens, and throw out every good dramatic idea, you'd get this. Imagine if someone had read a book containing every military movie cliche ever used and decided to use that as his script bible. Let's check off the cliches:
  • Commanding Officer a single day away from retirement with a dark past
  • Young virgin soldier
  • Soldier with a pregnant wife
  • Soldier about to get married
  • Soldier with a dead brother (who blames the new Staff Sergeant)
  • Single latino parent with a young child
  • Brave young latino child
I'll be fair. There are large portions of this film that I thoroughly enjoyed. Although he stumbles significantly in other areas, director Jonathan Liebesman knows action sequences and executes them very well. Whenever the characters aren't speaking the movie is fun. The alien invaders are sufficiently scary at times and the set pieces are intense enough to make me pay attention. There's a particular sequence on a bridge where the kids have to be lowered down while everyone is under fire that was very suspenseful. The movie is filmed like a military documentary and it shows. It feels like a war movie that just happens to have aliens as the enemy and that's entertaining.

The problems are completely on the written page. Everything is predictable, everything is cliche. Every line of dialogue is an unintentional laugh-riot. At one point Nantz gives a long emotional speech about his dark past. He follows up this powerful speech with the line: "But none of that matters any more." Half the audience fell out of their chairs. At another moment, Nantz notices that the aliens are particularly difficult to kill. The team manages to capture one damaged but alive and attempt surgery to find any weaknesses. After tearing through endless layers of tough armor (it took several minutes of screen time), Nantz plunges his knife into something soft and exclaims, "Here! This is it!" So all we have to do is shoot through tons of layers of ridiculously strong armor? Thanks man, good advice.

SPOILERS (I guess)

But the icing on the cake is when the team finally realizes the enemy mothership's secret weakness: Missiles! And after their success, they return to base to hear that the details of their amazing strategy are being broadcast all over the world. My god, we never thought to shoot missiles at them! Finally, now that we've figured out what to do, we can take those alien sons of bitches down!

Wait, what?

Missiles? What have you been doing, throwing rocks at the things?

That it took even half a second for the American military to decide to chuck an explosive at something that disagreed with them is ridiculous. It's so ridiculous, in fact, that it was all anyone could talk about as they exited the theater. Hell, even in Independence Day they had at least enough brains to show us that explosives, even nuclear explosives, were useless against the invaders. These guys are chumps!

Sigh. There's a game adaptation of this movie that will be released in the next few weeks for download on Xbox 360 and PS3. Maybe that'll have a better story.

Friday, January 7, 2011