Shrek 4: The Final Chapter

Shrek 4

Me: So the question really is: Just how interesting is the life of an ogre? The Shrek series of movies have all kind of picked up where the last one has left off with little time in between. That's fine, I suppose. It cuts down on non-canon fanfic opportunities, though I'm not sure if Shrek really had to worry too much about that. However, it has made me wonder about something. The first Shrek movie ended and it was all kinds of popular and it got a ride/attraction at Universal Studios Orlando. The Shrek 4-D experience ride picks up right where the original Shrek ended and involves the ghost of that short king from the movie whose name I don't recall who was voiced by that actor who used to be decent, but whose name I forgot ever since he dropped off my radar from being on 3rd Rock. Anyhow, that was all fine and dandy. But then a sequel came out. And the Shrek 2 movie starts immediately at the end of the first Shrek, but does not reference the events that take place in the Shrek 4-D experience attraction. So, does that mean that the Universal Studios Shrek ride did or didn't happen? Is that storyline canon in the Shrek universe? That has always plagued me since we went to Orlando and went on that ride.

For the record, I did ask two of the attendants at the Shrek ride/gift shop and neither could tell me if it is canon. Neither really understood what canon meant. My fixation on stuff like this is also why my wife doesn't always think I'm the best vacation partner.

Still, with that question unanswered, I suppose it hasn't caused too much difficulty with the consistency and integrity of the Shrek universe. I mean, I'm happily pretending the third movie never happened.

But I digress. Shrek 4 picks up with Shrek and Fiona living a humble marital life with their three kids. Shrek misses the old days of being a feared ogre and being a loner and is going through a sort of ogre version of a mid-life crisis. Enter Rumpelstiltskin who is given some flashback backstory of how he almost became king and was thwarted by Shrek rescuing Fiona in the first movie (which is now accepted as canon). Anyhow, he offers Shrek a chance to be a feared ogre again for one day. In exchange, he gets one day from Shrek. Shrek quickly takes the deal, since that is what men do and our penises never let us realize how much we had until we lost it. However, the day Rumpelstiltskin takes from Shrek is the day he was born, so Shrek was never born and Fiona was never rescued and therefore Rumpelstiltskin was able to make the deal and become king.

Shrek just has the one day he received to be a feared ogre to break the contract and turn things back to how they were. He has to do this with true love's kiss, so he must woo Fiona all over again and win her heart before the sun rises.

The basic issue that I had with this movie is that it emphasizes one of the issues that I have with time travel. You see, I love time travel and am fascinated by time travel stories and I'm kind of obsessed by it.

One of the things that I have asked of every serious relationship girlfriend that I have had (including my wife) early in our relationship, is to not tell me if they have met me before when they were younger. You see, if let's say, at some point in my life I am able to travel in time and decide to go back in time to fool around with an 18 year old version of my wife, she would have those memories of when she was 18 and would have probably brought them up to me at some point when I met her in her 20's. This would lead me to believe that since she has no memories of me from earlier, that I won't ever get my time machine and that kind of bums me out. However, if I make her promise to never tell me if I did meet her at an earlier age, then her lack of pointing it out to me is fully rational and it lends to the possibility that I still make obtain a time machine in my future to mess around with my wife. So, with that promise for her not to tell me coming up early in our relationship, I still have some hope that I will eventually one day gain access to time travel.

But then, you think, why haven't I gone back in time to meet myself and give myself lotto numbers or earlier access to a time machine? Well, the answer is simple: I have made a promise to myself not to do that. Because since I have not yet met myself, I would have to assume that I will not ever gain access to a time machine. However, since I know that I have pledged to myself not to meet myself in the past, it is fully rational that I may one day get a time machine and not go back and meet myself, so there is still hope that I will get one someday.

So my hopes of gaining access to a time machine have been in the back of my head as I've plodded along in life for a long while, since I've covered every contingency to explain why I haven't visited myself or been told by someone that they've seen a creepy older future version of myself stalking them in their wilder teenage years. This has been fine and dandy.

Then I became a father. And, believe me, I am not begrudging that at all. However, it changed my time travel fantasies. You see, before being a father, I'm sure I could plop around back in time and fool around with a young version of my wife and come back to my present and still know enough about my wife to woo and win her over. Sure, making sure our paths crossed might be tricky, but I know enough about her that I am certain that I could find her and win her over again (if need be from messing up the timeline) and we would be our happy little family again.

But now, as a father, that is different. I wouldn't want to go back into time before my daughter was born for fear of changing the exact circumstances of her conception and birth. It was all fine and dandy when it was just me and my wife; I'm sure I could win her back and get what I had again if the timeline changed. However, seeing that Molly is born as Molly is much more tricky. So, now, my time travel fantasies are more limited in scope. And I don't begrudge my daughter or think of it as a bad thing. It's just that she's more important to my than fulfilling my time travel fantasies.

That was one thing that they neglected to tell you at birthing class: your time travel dreams will forever be changed.

So, um, where was I?

Uh, Shrek 4. Shrek's deal with Rumpelstiltskin changed the timeline and he's most concerned with making Fiona happy instead of lamenting the fact that his kids now do not exist. That's just this weird parental negligence that he seems to have. I mean, perhaps not everyone has already thought out the consequences of time travel in regards to their children ahead of time, but after he took the deal and figured out what was going on, he should have at least been a little upset at that fact.

But then again, this was a kid's movie and Molly didn't seem to have a real issue with the issues that the movie compounded onto me. So perhaps I should judge it like a kid's movie and ignore the time travel existential parental issues that were barely realized within the movie, even if they are specific struggles that I have dealt with and overcome in my own philosophy about using time travel to bang my teenaged wife.

So, in that regards, Puss-in-Boots was cute, as was Cookie. It was definitely better than the third movie, but not as good as the first two. Hopefully, they've really realized that the Shrek well has been tapped dry and this will be the last movie (although they are supposedly planning a Puss-in-Boots spin-off).



Molly: (As usual, I will be transcribing as much as I can from what she says. We're at a computer and I'm typing up what we are saying as we speak, then going back afterward to format it. Her review will be in a Q&A form, due to her age. She's sitting next to me at my computer as we do this.)


Chuckie: What did you think of the movie, Shrek 4?
Molly: Huh? Why did you say Shrek 4?
Chuckie: Because it was the fourth movie, Pixie.
Molly: Just call it "Shrek".

Chuckie: Okay. We'll just call it Shrek. What did you think of the movie, Shrek?
Molly: I liked the girl. And the kitty cat. I like kitties! Meow! Meow!

Chuckie: What did you like about the girl?
Molly: That her liked Shrek.

Chuckie: What did you like about the kitty?
Molly: Um, the girl liked the kitty cat. And the girl said, "Who's a pretty kitty?" And the kitty cat said, "Me." (She laughs.) That's so funny, Daddy. That part cracked me up.

Chuckie: Did you like the movie?
Molly: Yes.

Chuckie: What did you like about it?
Molly: Because... um... with the... um... the babysits. Daddy, there's two girls and one boy of the babies?
Chuckie: No, Pixie, there were two boys and one girl ogre baby.
Molly: Oh. Well, did one of the boys or the girl like the squeaky thing?
Chuckie: The girl.
Molly: Oh.

Chuckie: What was the movie about?
Molly: The babies woke Shrek up with the squeaky toy.

Chuckie: After they woke up Shrek, what happened?
Molly: Him was mad. Then Shrek was trying to save the girl. He went to look for her in the castle and her wasn't there.

Chuckie: Then what?
Molly: I don't know. Maybe he got out of the castle and kissed the girl. (She giggles.) Kiss. Kiss. I want to kiss my boyfriends.

Chuckie: Who are your boyfriends?
Molly: Vyvon, Brice, Garrot and Craig. How many is that, Daddy?

Chuckie: That's four.
Molly: Why not five?

Chuckie: Daddy doesn't judge.
Molly: Okay. Then five.

Chuckie: Was the movie too scary for you?
Molly: No. Not scary for me.

Chuckie: Was the movie funny?
Molly: Um, just the parts that made me laugh. The other parts not so much. (She starts to sing "Rose's Turn" from the Broadway musical Gypsy. She knows it from Kurt singing it on "Glee". She omits a few lines, but otherwise gets the tune right.)
All that work and what did it getcha.
Thanks a lot and out with the garbage.
They take bows and you're batting zero.
I had a dream, Dad.
It wasn't for me, Dad.
And where would you be, Rachel Berrie?

Chuckie: Beautiful singing, Pixie. Why did you sing it?
Molly: Because I like it, Daddy. Daddy, is Glee on tonight?
Chuckie: No, Pixie. It's on Tuesday night.
Molly: Okay. Are we going to review Glee?
Chuckie: Maybe once the season is finished we can if you want to.
Molly: Okay.

Chuckie: So, how would you rate the movie?
Molly: You mean give the things?

Chuckie: Sure.
Molly: Um, all of the stars. And Daddy, you have to say "Out of what?".

Chuckie: Okay. Out of what?
Molly: Out of six.

Chuckie: So it gets all of the stars out of six?
Molly: Uh-huh.

Chuckie: Is that all?
Molly: No. All of the moons.
Chuckie: Out of how many?
Molly: (Sternly) Daddy, there's only one moon.

Chuckie: Okay, okay. Good point, Sweetie.
Molly: And now the suns. It gets all of them, Daddy.

Chuckie: Out of how many?
Molly: Out of twenty-sixty.

Chuckie: Do you think people would like this movie, Sweetie?
Molly: Yes, I think a lot of people would like it.

Chuckie: Who do you think would like this movie?
Molly: Everyone. (She starts singing "Rose's Turn" again.)

Chuckie: Is there anything else that you want to tell people about Shrek?
Molly: Um, I think someone would really like it. Someone really special.
Chuckie: Who?
Molly: (Holds her arms out wide and smiles brightly.) Me!



So, that's our review. For a Shrek movie is was watchable and much better than the third one. However, it shows that the well has run dry since they basically are just using plot from the first movie again (and even ending on "I'm a Believer" again). For Shrek universe canon, it introduced a previously unseen flashback scene and also did not sort out whether or not the Universal Studios attraction is an official part of the story or not. As a deep discussion and reference to the existential difficulties that come with being a parent and time travel paradox and alternate timelines, the movie fell flat. But Puss-in-Boots was kind of funny.

I give it three out of five stars as a family movie that has some funny bits, fewer pop culture references than the other movies and only a smattering of poop jokes. However, it gets zero out of five stars as an existential metaphysical primer.
Molly gives all of the stars (out of six) and all of the moons (out of the one moon) and all of the suns (out of twenty-sixty). Apparently everyone would love the movie, especially if you are really special (though not so humble) like her.

The Secret of Kells

The Secret of Kells.

Me: First of all, I am kind of biased towards Irish stories and tales relating to Ireland, so The Secret of Kells obviously plays towards that. But it was also nominated for an Oscar for Best Animated Feature, so I think that shows that it is probably at least a quality flick beyond just my biases.

The story tells about the creation of the Book of Kells, which is a real thing even though the story is obviously steeped in fantasy. The Book of Kells is probably considered to be one of Ireland's greatest national treasures. The Book of Kells is a collection of four Gospels that was created by Celtic monks in the 8th or 9th century. What is particularly remarkable about the book, however, is the Insular art that makes it up. Take almost any art history course and you'll find out about Insular art. However, most art history courses are also so fucking dull that there is a fair chance that you will not recall it anyway. But it truly is a remarkable style of script and artwork that is just absolutely amazing to see, especially when you consider the pains it took to make in the 8th century.

For a story about the Book of Kells, which is a collection of Gospels, there is not a direct or overt mention of Christianity. In fact, other than the few visual references to Celtic Crosses in the village, there is not a real mention at all. Really, you probably need to know about the Book of Kells to realize the connection to religion. In the movie, they talk about the power of books and knowledge, but don't reference what the book they are working on is about. Personally, I like this take. It makes the movie accessible for non-Christians without being preachy, but the message takes on a deeper meaning for those who are Christian and realize that they are working on an Insular copy of the Gospels.

Anyhow, the story revolves around Brendon, a young boy in the abbey of Kells. He is orphaned, but raised by his uncle, the Abbot of Kells. The Abbot fears that Kells will be attacked by the Norsemen (who historically raided Ireland during this time, and really did violate and almost destroy the real Book of Kells) and he has become obsessed with building a wall around the city to protect it from the outside world. This, of course, is a metaphor for the rigid beliefs and the wall the Abbot has built around himself and other ideas.

The wall is a real boundary between the Abbot's village of Kells and the forest outside that is still filled with lush Celtic mythological creatures, including at least one faerie. The wall also serves as a metaphoric boundary between the Abbot's strict beliefs and the pagan culture that surrounds them, keeping a hard line between them with no overlapping.

Brother Aidan arrives at Kells and carried with him the uncompleted manual that will eventually become the Book of Kells. Brendon, who against his uncles desires has always been fascinated with books and the scriptorium, quickly takes to Brother Aidan and the wonder and beauty that the book shows. He wants to help Brother Aidan complete the book, though his uncle only wants him to focus on the practical of building the wall.

Anyhow, Brendon ventures out into the forest twice to help Brother Aidan and along the way he meets a faerie wolf-spirit named Aisling who introduces him to a world outside of the abbey's walls and the wonder that is in it. With Aisling's help, Brendon first collects berries to make ink and then later gets a scrying glass to help make the Insular art from a terrible mythological beast.

Brother Aidan serves as a medium for Brendon, showing a way to embrace both worlds. He still ultimately shares the same goals as the Abbot's beliefs, but he shows that there is a way beyond the rigid walls of Kells.

Kells is attacked by Norsemen and Brendon and Aidan escape, ultimately completing the book on their own before Brendon returns to Kells years later to be reunited with his uncle on his deathbed, who has come to see the power in Aidan and Brendon's way.

The story is a little simplistic in the telling, but the broad brushes that it is painted with do not matter. For those who know what the Book of Kells really is, it is about spreading the Gospels. However, for those who do not know it's real-life history, the movie never says anything further than spreading knowledge through books. I liked this approach.

But really what makes the movie a gem is the fact that it is beautiful. The movie is absolutely gorgeous. The artwork is stylistic and beautiful. The soundtrack is not overbearing, but it is beautiful. I especially like Aisling's song that she used to turn Aidan's cat into a spirit to steal a key (and this serves as a mental note to myself to try to find that song to download onto my iPod later).

The visuals are fantastic and there is a stark contrast in some of them. The lush flowing curved lines and bright colors of the forest and people of Kells are contrasted by the rigid lines of the dark Norsemen who attack. Their voices are modulated as well, making them seem more the vicious invader in sight and sound in the movie. And when Brendon fights to Celtic monster, the visuals once again change to represent the alien nature of the beast.

One of the most fascinating things to me is that such a simple, beautiful style of artwork in the movie is used to tell the story of the deep, detail and full style of Insular art in the Book of Kells.

It truly is a beautiful thing to watch. Animation like this is hard to find these days in a world of Disney, Dreamworks and Pixar, but when you see it, you really realize what we are missing today in animated movies: art.



Molly: (As usual, I will be transcribing as much as I can from what she says. We're at a computer and I'm typing up what we are saying as we speak, then going back afterwards to format it. Her review will be in a Q&A form, due to her age. She's sitting next to me at my computer as we do this.)

Chuckie: What did you think of the movie, The Secret of Kells?
Molly: Um, the wolf. No, Daddy, the girl wolf.
Chuckie: What about her?
Molly: She turns into a wolf.

Chuckie: Did you like the movie, Pixie?
Molly: Yeah.

Chuckie: What was your favorite part of the movie?
Molly: My best favorite part?
Chuckie: Yeah.
Molly: Um, um, um... the one that showed him her forest.

Chuckie: What did you like about that part?
Molly: That the picking berries was stinky. P.U.! (Looking at a couple of Heroscape figures that I have on my desk and haven't gotten around to putting away yet.) Hey, Daddy, are these bad guys?
Chuckie: Um, yeah.
Molly: (Picking up the spiders and aligning them against the orc rider on a wolf figure.) I'm pretending that these are good guys and this one is bad. (Holding up one of the spiders to threaten the wolf-rider.) I'm going to fight you, bad guy! (A small skirmish takes place on my desk as the spiders attack and knock over the wolf-rider.)

Chuckie: Okay, Pixie, let's finish the review first. So, what was the movie about?
Molly: They were trying to fight the monster so they could get his eye and the monster could eat himself up.

Chuckie: Why were they trying to get the eye from the monster, Sweetie?
Molly: For the man.

Chuckie: What did the man want with it?
Molly: The book. He wanted to write in it. And the cat liked him. He liked the other boy frist, then he liked the dad. What's wrong with that funny kitty cat? They wanted to write in the book so everyone could read it because that way people learn things from books.

Chuckie: Was there anything that you didn't like about the movie?
Molly: The wolves. (Drawing out the first part of "wolves" to make it sound like a howl.) The wooooooooo-lves. The bad ones. Not the good one. Awoooooooo! I'm calling the mommy wolves so the baby wolves can come. Hey, can they hear me? Awooooooooo! Hey, why aren't they coming? I can't hear their feet. I'm going to check outside. (Molly stands up and lifts the blinds to the window next to my desk and our cat, Untini, is there. This startles Molly who lets out a loud surprised noise.) Ah! Utini sacred me! (She starts to laugh at herself being startled.) Utini, I didn't say "meow", I said "Awoooooo"!

Chuckie: What did you think about Brendon?
Molly: I want to talk about the other boy. The one that was his brother.

Chuckie: Which one?
Molly: He had a lot of brothers. (I think Molly is a little confused here since Brendon was an only child, but since they were all at an abbey, they referred to everyone as "Brother".) I mean, the one that had the crystal. (holds her hand up to her eye, as if looking through a crystal in her hand, like Brother Aidan did when writing.)

Chuckie: What about him?
Molly: Daddy, what I liked about it... I liked the whole story of it.

Chuckie: What about the faerie girl?
Molly: I liked her. At the ending, I liked about her that all that she did. She helped him climb trees. And she turned the cat into... (takes on a quiet stage-whispered tone, sounding a little like the character did in the movie at times as she waves her hand in rising circles.) ...flies... flies... flies...

Chuckie: Why did she do that to the cat?
Molly: So her can get the key. She used... (takes on that whispered tone again.) ...faerie magic.

Chuckie: Why are you whispering it, Pixie?
Molly: Because... it's a secret from the wolves. Awooooooooo! Let me check outside. (She moves to the window again and looks outside.)

Chuckie: Anything yet?
Molly: Nope. Not yet. No wolves. Oh, man! Darn.

Chuckie: Was the movie too scary?
Molly: Yeah, at parts.

Chuckie: What parts, Sweetie?
Molly: Um, the northmen were scary.

Chuckie: What was scary about the Norsemen?
Molly: That they fight the daddy and him and him died. Then him waked up because he wasn't really dead.

Chuckie: So, how would you rate the movie?
Molly: Um I want to give the things out now. I want to give it twenty stars.
Chuckie: Out of how many?
Molly: Out of six.

Chuckie: You know you gave it more starts than you said it was out of, right?
Molly: I know. I have to say it like that so that the wolves will come. Daddy, did you know that wolves don't die unless you kill them?
Chuckie: I was unaware of that.
Molly: (Matter-of-factly) Yeah. It's true. Awoooooooo! Oh, and a big number, Daddy. Twenty-sixty moons.

Chuckie: Twenty-sixty moons?
Molly: Out of sixty. And twenty-sixty-twenty suns. Out of six.

Chuckie: Do you think people will like this movie?
Molly: Yes, everyone will like it, Daddy.

Chuckie: Who do you think would like this movie?
Molly: The best?
Chuckie: Yes, Sweetie.
Molly: Um, Edison and Mason. And all of the brothers. Um, but not my wolves. Only people. Only kids and babies and mommies and daddies. But me and my wolves are going to watch another movie. Awoooooooo!

Chuckie: What movies are you and your wolves going to watch?
Molly: Um. "Glee". The one where Lady Gaga. Edison likes that.

Chuckie: Is there anything else that you want to tell people about the movie, Sweetie?
Molly: Um, I don't know. They might like it. Who knows?
Chuckie: (Laughs because that is probably the most honest line I've ever heard in a movie review.)



So, that's our review. I thought the movie was good. The story is simple, but the story telling is absolutely incredible. What makes the movie, however, is the visuals. It is an artistic masterpiece. While the story is good, the movie could still be appreciated with the sound off. The visuals are that compelling. The religious tones of the Book of Kells are minimalized in the movie, making it fully accessible to all, though the rigid walls built between pagan myths and rigid spirituality are still there in physical and metaphoric form. I highly recommend this movie.

I give it four and a half out of five stars, and I highly suggest it for anyone who likes the beauty of true animation, which is unfortunately a lost art form these days.
Molly gives it twenty out of six stars, twenty-sixty out of sixty moons and twenty-sixty-twenty out of six suns. She also suggests that Edison and Mason see it as well as any Brothers in abbots. However, if you are a wolf, you'd be better off watching a repeat of the Lady Gaga episode of "Glee" instead.

Board Game Review: Pretty Pretty Princess

Originally posted on BoardGameGeek at: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/5039821

My biases first: I am a big fan of theme in games and do not mind reaching through piles of chits if the theme and game play is good enough. While I do favor confrontation, chits, bits and polished pieces of AT games, there are still a large number of Euros that I'll build my farm on or attend auctions at and be quite content at the end of my experience. And while I get season passes to the Pennsylvania Renaissance Faire every year and get dressed up for it, none of my costumes have ever been princess costumes.

Molly likes playing just about any game and is much more open to "house rule" games than her Daddy is. She also enjoys dress up, jewelry and pretending that she is a princess. So, yes, she is a three-year old girl.



The Overview:

The box cover for the non-Disney version (the one we own). Photo by Luminous.

Box contents. Photo by nastycleavage (which incidentally changed my unspoken assumption that in writing a review of "Pretty, Pretty Princess" that I would not be writing the word 'cleavage' in the review).



Pretty Pretty Princess is a children's game aimed at young girls and teaches just the very basics of waiting for your turn, counting spaces, matching, set completion and sharing while indulging in a game of dress-up.

The game is for 2-4 players and plays in about 15-20 minutes. The game is suggested for ages 5 and up, but at three and a half, my daughter has picked up the game and can play and explain it all by herself. Well, her explanations are a bit better in the course of a game, where she can tell you what the effect of the space you've moved onto is. The game would probably even work with kids a bit younger as well, though they would probably need help with number recognition, moving their pawns and not eating the rings. But I'm sure the "dress up" aspect of the game would still be entertaining at earlier ages.

Each player chooses a pawn of one of four colors and places it on one of the spaces on the board at its "home color". Each player takes their turn and spins the spinner, which has spaces numbered one through four. They move forward on the circular board that number of spaces and perform whatever action is on the location they end on.

There are 16 spaces in the circular board path and most of them let you take a piece of jewelry of your color to then wear. There are 2 earrings, 1 ring, 1 necklace and 1 bracelet for each color in the supply. There is also a crown, but there is only one and it is shared by all players. Some of the spaces prompt you to remove a piece of jewelry and put it in the supply again, and some let you choose any piece of jewelry and some make you take the black ring. The black ring is another article of jewelry that is shared by all players, however, if you currently are in possession of the black ring, you cannot win until you get rid of it.

If you land on a crown space (or choose the crown on the take any piece of jewelry space) and another player currently has it on, you take it from them and put it on. The same holds true for the black ring space. So you can get rid of the black ring by either having another player take it from you or landing on the "put any piece of jewelry back" space and dropping the black ring.

The winner of the game is the first person who gets all of the jewelry of their color (2 earrings, necklace, bracelet and ring) and the crown on at the same time while not in possession of the black ring. The winner is declared the Pretty Pretty Princess and can now admire themself in the mirror that adorns the back of the movement spinner.

Molly's House Rules:

The game is very basic and simple and Molly has grasped all of the rules and concepts very quickly during our first game. However, the rules state that you are only supposed to take one earring whenever you land on the earring space and not two. When Molly landed on the earring space on her first game, I told her to take one earring and she countered with, "But I have two ears, Daddy" and gave me an incredulous look. I couldn't really argue with her logic, so we house ruled it and now you get two earrings on that space.



Learning the Game:

The game is listed for 5 and up, but really my 3 year old daughter fully understands the game and plays it by herself. The spaces are illustrated with the jewelry and what you are supposed to do, so reading is not really required with a familiarity with the game. She also can count and recognize numbers from 1 through 4, so she really doesn't have an issue with that.

My assumption is that 5 and up is really more for a fear of those too young putting pieces in their mouth (though even at three, most kids are pretty much past that) and for those that are more unfamiliar with games. My daughter has been gaming since her second birthday, so she's a bit quicker to pick up on games than some.

But anyhow, the game is very easy and simple and quite easy to learn. Five year olds would have no problem at all with it. Judge your child's experience with games and such to determine if they will be able to grasp it at a younger age than that.



The Components:

The board is set up to run a circle of 16 spaces around the central jewelry supply bin. Photo by sisteray.

The movement spinner. On the back of it is the mirror for the winner to admire themselves in. Photo by odinsfirecracker.

The black ring hinders whoever wears it from becoming the Pretty Pretty Princess. Photo by odinsfirecracker.

My daughter adorned as the Pretty Pretty Princess wearing all of the jewelry. Photo by me (thinwhiteduke).



The components of the game are sturdy and gaudy oversized pieces of plastic jewelry. In other words, perfect for dress up. The earrings are clip-on earrings. And while this is expected, as I didn't think the pretty princesses playing would have to pierce their ears, it is nice because the clips seem to secure firm enough without being too tight to pinch and make the children hesitant or afraid to wear them. To date, these are the only clip on fake toy earrings that we've found that my daughter doesn't say hurts her ears.

Each set of jewelry matches the color of the pawn, so there is no real confusion on whose piece belongs to whom. Granted, there is no real consideration taken for a color blind player, but color-blindness is sex-linked and males are more prone to it, so ultimately the game took a gamble on the percentages since the game will appeal predominantly to girls. Plus, other than the black ring and the crown (the unique pieces), you cannot take other player's necklaces or whatever, so as long as you have the right number of pieces, you'll be fine even if they don't match.

The nice thing about the game though, is that my three year old can set up everything by herself. The other nice thing about the game is that a blue (well, more of a cyan) color is included as one of the player options. This gives Daddies who have been suckered into playing this game with their daughters a more manly choice of jewelry colors.



Playing the Game:

Gameplay is all roll and move and is primarily luck driven. The only real strategy choices come from landing on the "take any piece" spaces and taking the crown from another player to block their chances of winning. My three year old figured out that strategy on her own. She plays cutthroat Pretty Pretty Princess.

There is one issue that I have found with the game, however. Players who choose the blue pawn or the green pawn (the more masculine colors in the game) have a distinct, albeit slight, advantage. Each of those colors begin with the "Black Ring" space in their home color. At start, players place their pawns on any space in their "home color field". By placing a pawn on one of these spaces, you eliminate any possibility of drawing a black ring on your first turn. In fact, the only negative space in range from the player's first move from there is the "Put One Piece Back" space. However, if rolled on their first move, it has no effect since you do not have any pieces to lose. The pink and purple players (the more feminine colors) can similarly start on their "negative" spaces (Put One Piece Back), but are in risk of drawing the Black Ring on their first turn. Ultimately, these odds even a bit through the game, but not to a static, completely even level. The slight advantage to the Blue and Green players is present in the game and I think since these are also the "more masculine" colors, it explains why the Daddies and the Pop Pops usually end up covered in more jewels than the kids or the Mommies or Grandmoms playing and why a disproportionate number of our games have ended up with my being the Pretty Pretty Princess.

The effect of "Pop Pop" choosing the "masculine" color blue. He's the Pretty Pretty Princess. Photo by a terrible cell phone camera.



Scalability:

The game is for 2-4 players and there are no rules changes for the differing number of players. It scales perfectly fine and my daughter even entertains herself with a non-competitive solo game from time to time. It's all about the dress up, not the mechanics.



Does the Wife Little Girl Like It?:

The most important category, since this is a kid's game. She'll play anything, but it depends on her level of comprehension of the actual game on how closely we will play by the real rules instead of her taking the pawns or figures and making them have a tea party or something. That being said, she fully comprehends the rules of the game (well enough to play by herself) and absolutely loves it. She does not mind losing, as she has fun throughout. And this is good since Daddy wins this game far too often for his ego to really take.

This is a game of dress up with gaudy plastic jewelry. And there is a plastic princess crown in the game that you can wear. It is hard for a three year old girl not to love this game.



The Pros:

*A simple game of dress up that knows how to win over its target audience.
*The game is easy enough for kids to learn and play unsupervised.
*Blue is included as a color to help the fragile egos of the males playing the game.
*Components are perfect for what they are.
*Good theme for holding interest to teach basic counting and turn taking.
*Quick gameplay means it holds the attention of younger players and limits the length of time that Daddies need to be wearing gaudy earrings.


The Cons:

*The "masculine" colors (blue and green) have a slight edge in the game, resulting in a disproportionate number of Daddies being named the Pretty Pretty Princess.
*No real strategy or choices, just roll and move.
*Plays into young girl stereotypes, reinforcing them somewhat.



In Molly's Words:

Since Molly is too young to read, let alone type, the rest of the review will be written in question and answer form. Molly is next to my computer and I'll be transcribing what she says and will format and add it after.

Chuckie: What do you think of the game "Pretty Pretty Princess"?
Molly: Well, I think everyone is going to like it.

Chuckie: So, you like the game?
Molly: Yeah, everyone likes it.

Chuckie: What do you like most about the game, Pixie?
Molly:Um, well... well... That it makes me proud.
Chuckie: What makes you proud?
Molly: The game.
Chuckie: Why does the game make you proud, Sweetie?
Molly: Because lots of times I win. I didn't know that I could win that game and when I do I get proud.

Chuckie: So, how do you play the game?
Molly: You have to set all of the board pieces out. Then... then... then what? Um, then you have to get all your people out to pick which kind. Then you have to spin to walk the people to get the jewelry.

Chuckie: How do you win the game?
Molly: If you get all the pieces.

Chuckie: What pieces are in the game?
Molly: Um, mean the pieces? All of them? There's pink people, purple people, green people and blue people and you have the crown in it and the necklace in it and the bracelet and the ring and the necklace and the black ring. The black ring is bad, Daddy.

Chuckie: How old do you think you have to be to play the game, Pixie?
Molly: Um, I don't know. Maybe like 3. Or 7 or 8. Or 2 or 1. Or 50 years old. Daddy, I wish I could be 17.

Chuckie: Why do you want to be 17?
Molly: Because I can play lots of games so I get some high scores to beat the monsters.

Chuckie: You need high scores to fight the monsters?
Molly: No, Daddy. So I can just have some high scores. And when I'm 17, I can have big monster feet. Hey, Daddy, look how big my muscles are. (She bends her arms back to show off her muscles and I give a small "wow" at the size of her muscles.) I'm going to show Mommy how big my muscles are. (She then runs off to go show my wife how big her muscles are. Molly returns a few moments later.

Chuckie: So, do you think this game is for boys or for girls or for both?
Molly: Um, boys and girls. Boys would like it. Girls would like it too.

Chuckie: So, how would you rate this game, Pixie?
Molly: I want to do my stars and moons and suns now.

Chuckie: Okay, how many stars would you give it?
Molly: Um, five.
Chuckie: Out of how many?
Molly: Out of six. Oh and Daddy, the moons!

Chuckie: Okay, how many moons would you give the game?
Molly: Um, six. Out of seven. And six suns. Out of twenty. Oh, and Daddy, when one of my friends talked to me and said something to me, I said "Hello?!?" and that cracked me up.

Chuckie: Um, okay. Uh, so who do you think would like to play "Pretty Pretty Princess"?
Molly: I think Ellen Wilkenson.

Chuckie: No, no, Sweetie. I mean what kinds of people.
Molly: I want to do what kind of kids. And I think Grandmom and Pop pop too.

Chuckie: Do you think the game is too hard?
Molly: Yeah, but not for me.

Chuckie: Do you think the game is too easy?
Molly: Yeah, but not for me. It's a little too easy and a little too hard.

Chuckie: Is there anything else that you'd like to tell people about the game?
Molly: Um, well, I love it.



Overall:

Pretty Pretty Princess is a great game for young girls. Gameplay is really simplistic and it is completely random for play and winning (though with that slight edge for the "masculine colors"). My daughter is capable of more complex games, but she loves the dress up aspect of this game. It plays a little into and somewhat reinforces the little girl stereotype and I would like to see a game designed for girls with a little more depth and strategy. But if you have other games for your daughter to play besides this one, it isn't bad to pull out and just have some fun with without thinking too hard about it.

Once again, the risk of playing blue. Photo by my wife.


Chuckie:


Molly:
Five out of six stars.
Six out of seven moons.
Six out of twenty suns.

Iron Man 2

Iron Man 2

Me: I'm an old school comic book geek. Actually, I'm kind of just a geek in general, but when you qualify your geekiness with something it seems to make it a little more palatable. I haven't really been in comics for a number of years, but I used to read, collect and bag and board my comics. I obsessed about my collection, then sold it one day. I sold it to a comic book shop (these were pre-eBay days), which was probably the worst selling mistake one could make. I took a huge hit on the value of the comics and got burned on any "monetary value" that comics held from that point on. However, I still kept reading them for a while afterwards, but no longer cared about what they were worth. After I read a book, I gave it away. I started to enjoy comics for the story and art and it really made them a lot more fun than obsessing about what was going to be worth anything.

One more quick side-note story before I get into the movie, and really it is not really related to Iron Man, but I think it is an amusing story. Anyhow, I read and collected comics in high school. This was shortly before Tim Burton's Batman made it to the theaters, so this was before the quasi-surge of comics being "cool". Anyhow, I was in my local comic shop and ran into Mr. Leverit, one of my high school science teachers at the comic shop. It is always weird seeing a teacher out of school and seeing one in a comic book shop was even weirder. We grunted out greeting to one another and that was it. Then, the next day at school during a lab, he called me up to his desk while everyone was working. Now, when a student is called up before a class like that, you assume they are getting in trouble (I assumed I was in trouble for something) and everyone in class looked to see what was happened as they didn't want to miss me getting yelled at for something. So I went up and stood before his desk, with everyone in class's eyes on me, and looked at Mr. Leverit and in the fearful and hesitant voice of one ready to be yelled at for unknown reasons, I said, "Yes?" He looked at me and said, "What do you think about the new Batman Year Three storyline? Do you think that it's any good and do you think that it will be worth anything?" I shrunk before his desk. Every eye in the class was on me. I would have rather been yelled at for something I didn't do and tried to pull off a rebel student rep from it. Instead, I was the geeky class member whose science teacher was asking for his advice on the value and reading worth of Batman comic books.

Needless to say, I was not the cool guy in my high school.

Anyhow, even when reading comics, I never really read Iron Man. I was familiar with the storylines and knew a few things, like that Tony Stark was an alcoholic and that he had health issues. The thing about most Marvel universe characters as opposed to DC universe characters is that there are human elements and human failings in their heroes. The DC universe is more mythological, with most heroes (except Batman) to be almost like Greek Gods and above human failings. To me, this has always made the Marvel titles more interesting.

I didn't see the first Iron Man movie in the theater, but caught it on video. It surprised me at how good it was. It is silly and over-the-top, but it is probably my favorite of the comic book movies to date. Robert Downey Jr. really is an amazing actor and has the charisma to make Tony Stark interesting and fun to watch. However, it turns out that usually the scenes with Tony Stark end up being much more interesting than the scenes with Iron Man in them. But the first movie was surprisingly fun. I probably like it more than I should because it caught me by surprise. My expectations were low, especially since I don't have any childhood nostalgia pertaining to Iron Man. But it hurdled that bar by so much that I probably inflated my opinion on it because of that.

That being said, this is a sequel, so my expectations were once again lowered. So, the bar was pretty low on the high jump, and the movie cleared it, but barely. There are no surprise record jumps on this one. The movie is passable, but barely. Once again, Robert Downey Jr. is much more interesting out of the suit than in it. But one thing of note for this movie (and probably why it was passable) is that there is much more story and build up than actual action. The vast majority of the movie is Downey out of the suit. Unfortunately, though, the storylines are a little dull and nothing spectacular.

One of the things that I liked about the movie is the plotline that Stark is called before a Congressional Committee to give testimony about the fact that a weapon capable of taking out a modern army has been developed and is controlled by a single corporation. I like looking at comic books with this eye of "realism". However, the downside of this is that the "realism" is not consistent for when the "Stark Expo" is attacked, all I could think about was the fact that every single attendee at the Expo has such a huge lawsuit on their hands that would effectively drain all of Stark's money and fold his company in a moment, if the stock dropping of Stark's company didn't already plummet from the attack didn't already collapse the corporation.

The action is so-so, but it is definitely cartoon violence (fighting robots) rather than the dark, grim violence that the modern Batman movies present. There is also a build up towards the eventual Avengers movie, which I have to say impresses me with Marvel's foresight and planning. In fact, if you hang around through the really long credits, you'll see a scene that sets up the next Marvel comic book movie: Thor. Thor, by the way, will probably tank. Personally, I love Norse Myths, but the Marvel universe Thor is just a nerd. I don't see a lot of interest in it.*

One of the things that I noticed in the movie, however, was product placement. Dr. Pepper cans were strewn about the set. But what most confused me was Kodak's tie-in. When they showed the exterior shot establishing the "Stark Expo" which is supposed to be the pinnacle of technology and advancement, they had a digital billboard outside in the background that had the Kodak logo on it advertising and selling a roll of camera film. This struck me as odd because: A) Kodak no longer produces Kodacrome camera film. B) The movie came out after Kodak stopped producing film. And C) the Stark Expo is supposed to be the pinnacle of technology and they are advertising film for camera instead of digital camera technology there?



Molly: (As usual, I will be transcribing as much as I can from what she says. We're at a computer and I'm typing up what we are saying as we speak, then going back afterwards to format it. Her review will be in a Q&A form, due to her age. She's sitting next to me at my computer as we do this.)

Chuckie: What did you think of the movie, "Iron Man 2"?
Molly: It was good.

Chuckie: What was good about it?
Molly: When they got friends again.

Chuckie: Do you mean when the two men in the Iron Man suits stopped fighting each other?
Molly: Yeah, and they got friends again.

Chuckie: What was your favorite part of the movie?
Molly: Um, the airplane one.
Chuckie: What airplane one?
Molly: I mean that part of the movie.
Chuckie: Okay. I'm not sure what you are talking about though, Pixie.
Molly: Airplanes! Do I need to tell you in your ear? (She leans in, grabs my head to pull it to her and puts her mouth up to my ear as if to whisper. However, she does not whisper.) The airplanes in the movie!
Chuckie: Okay, okay! Don't yell in Daddy's ear.
Molly: Sorry, Daddy.
Chuckie: That's okay. So what did you like about the airplanes in the movie?
Molly: One of them was flying in the air.

Chuckie: Was there anything you didn't like about the movie?
Molly: Yeah. The bad guy.

Chuckie: What about him didn't you like.
Molly: The one bad guy was trying to hurt Iron Man. And that wasn't nice. And I was like "Huh? Don't fight him. He's the good guy!" And that's why I said boo for him.

Chuckie: Yeah, you booed him in the movie.
Molly: Yeah, and I said "Yay!" for Iron Man.

Chuckie: So, what happened in the movie?
Molly: Hey Dad, I know what those number are. (She points to a box of sandwich baggies that I have on the upper shelf of my desk (it's there for bagging game components). There is a 50 crossed out and in big red letters is reads "62" over it.) It says: Two. Six. Daddy, what does two-six mean?
Chuckie: You're reading it backwards, Sweetie. It says six-two. That means sixty two.
Molly: Whoa! That's a lot.

Chuckie: So, what happened in the movie, Pixie.
Molly: Um, Iron Man had a beard like you do, Daddy. (She reaches up and traces my goatee.) But his went like this. (She traces a zig-zag edge along my goatee then traces her finger up around where Tony Stark had a mustache, but I do not.)
Chuckie: Yeah. Should I grow my beard like Iron Man?
Molly: No. Because I want you to be my Daddy.

Chuckie: So, what was your favorite part of the movie?
Molly: Um. My favorite part was the girl.
Chuckie: Which girl?
Molly: The one in the movie, you silly goof! When Iron Man brought her strawberries. That one. She got strawberries as a present.
Chuckie: Did she like the strawberries? (They were a minor plot point in the movie used to illustrate how Tony Stark didn't know anything about those supposedly closest to him.)
Molly: Um, yes and no. I forget.

Chuckie: So, how would you rate the movie?
Molly: I want to do stars now, Daddy.

Chuckie: Okay, Pixie. I just say that so that you can rate it however you want.
Molly: (Narrowing her eyes and crossing her arms across her chest and blurting out determinedly.) Stars!

Chuckie: Okay, how many stars would you give the movie?
Molly: Five.
Chuckie: Out of how many?
Molly: Out of... Um... You say it, Daddy.

Chuckie: No, Pixie, you have to tell me how many.
Molly: Um, thirteen. Daddy, now the moons.

Chuckie: Okay, how many moons would you give the movie?
Molly: Six moons.
Chuckie: Out of how many?
Molly: Out of twenty. Hey! We forgot the suns! (She starts to sing a song she made up. I tried to keep up my typing with her singing, but I missed at least one verse.)
Sun, sun, sun days.
Sun, sun, sun days.
There will always be sun days.
Sun, sun, sun, please come back tomorrow.
Sun, sun, sun, sunny days.
Now that you can come back today!

Chuckie: (Laughing a bit at her song, especially at the futility of trying to keep up with it while typing and also at the fact that "today" ends on a very long, drawn out high note that is apparently very much out of my daughter's range.)
Molly: Hey! That's not a funny song. It's a very serious song, Daddy.

Chuckie: Okay. Sorry, Pixie. So, many suns does it get?
Molly: This is going to be a lot, Daddy.
Chuckie: Okay.
Molly: Twelve-Sixty two.

Chuckie: Out of how many?
Molly: Thirteen.

Chuckie: Do you think people would like this movie?
Molly: Mm-hm.

Chuckie: Would do you think would like this movie?
Molly: Um. Ellen Wilkinson. Her at my school.
Chuckie: Why would she like it?
Molly: Because her four.

Chuckie: So, four year olds would like the movie?
Molly: Mm-hm. And Jacob. Because he's four too. And Brice because he's four too. Those are how many kids are four. And Edison and Mason. But Edison is five, but five year olds would like it too.

Chuckie: Is there anything else that you want to tell people about the movie?
Molly: Yeah. It was too loud. All of it was loud, so you had to hold my ears, Daddy.



So, that's our review. I think the movie is passable, but barely. It lacks the charm and fun of the first Iron Man movie. The storylines are rather dull in the movie, but Downey at least is charming enough to hold your attention on the screen. The action scenes are not dominant in the movie, but that is fine, since they are all rather hum-drum anyhow. And while they added War Machine and a couple of SHIELD operatives as allies in the movie, it did not quite fall into the comic book sequel trap and have too many new characters and villains in the movie just to sell toys, even if it destroys any chance of a story or plot. And I'm still not exactly thrilled with Samuel Jackson (who I love) as Nick Fury. It just doesn't work for me. Oh, and perhaps it was just our theater, but it was one very loud movie. It wasn't just Molly's sensitive ears that were annoyed by that. The violence in the movie was comic book and fantastic for the most part and was primarily against robots and things rather than threatening people. As the movie ended and we sat through the credits, Molly wanted us to pretend that we were Iron Man and War Machine (I was Iron Man, probably because of my beard, and she was "that other one"). So she seemed to like it and was definitely involved in the plot of the movie, asking a lot of good questions along the way.

I give it two and a half out of five stars, and commend the movie for going with more plot than action, but just wish that the plot was actually a bit more interesting.
Molly gives is five out of thirteen stars, six out of twenty moons and twelve-sixty two out of thirteen moons. Apparently four year olds will love this movie, especially her friends at pre-school. And despite my apparent similarity in beards with Tony Stark, I should not grow a mustache like he had.



*Postscript Note: Since writing this, I found out that my wife apparently loves Thor. So, I suppose that I underestimated how many people might actually enjoy a Thor movie. With my wife now on board, that increases the total people looking forward to that movie to two: her and the little girl from Adventures in Babysitting.

Board Game Review: Go Away Monster!

Originally posted on BoardGameGeek at: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/519777/daddy-daughter-review-go-away-monster


Our biases first:
I am a big fan of theme in games and do not mind reaching through piles of chits if the theme and game play is good enough. While I do favor confrontation, chits, bits and polished pieces of AT games, there are still a large number of Euros that I'll build my farm on or attend auctions at and be quite content at the end of my experience. I also enjoy playing games with my daughter that are constructive and innovative and can be more interesting for me than Chutes and Ladders and Candyland.

Molly likes playing just about any game and is much more open to "house rule" games than her Daddy is. She also has never been afraid of monsters and instead has always had a particular fondness for them.



The Overview:

The box is small and contains a small window with a clear piece of plastic to act as the "window". Since this game is for younger kids, do not expect that plastic to remain intact very long. . Photo by EJKemp.

Pretty much everything that comes inside the box, minus a cloth bag to draw the pieces from. Photo by cbrua.



Go Away Monster is a children's game that can be used as an early means to teach turn taking behaviors and shape and size recognition. The game also promotes a sense of empowerment of children over monsters, though it is hard to gauge the game's success on this since my daughter prefers to draw the monsters.

The game is for 1-4 players and plays in 5-10 minutes. The game is recommended for ages 3 and up, but my daughter got it for her 2nd birthday and grasped it immediately. It is not a complex game and I think that most two year olds would have no problem with it.

Each player gets a board representing a bedroom with four items missing from it. These items are silhouetted to show where they go and are a bed, a lamp, a picture in an oval frame and a teddy bear. There are also a number of thick cardboard pieces that get placed in an opaque draw bag. There are 4 of each room piece (enough for each bedroom to get one of them) and 8 monster figures that are placed in the bag.

On a player's turn, they reach into the bag and draw out a piece. Each piece is shaped like the corresponding object, so you have tactile clues to what you are drawing blindly. However, some of the monsters are shaped similarly to the objects for the room, so you may end up pulling out the wrong piece (well, if you are three, you may).

If you drew a piece you need for your room, you place it on the correct spot on your board. If you drew a piece that you already have, you give it to another player who still needs that piece (to encourage cooperation). If it is a monster, you yell out "Go away, monster!" and you discard the monster in a common pit in the middle of the table. Your turn is then over and the next player draws from the bag.

The game is over when every item and every monster is drawn from the bag and placed either on the room board or in the monster pit.

Molly's House Rules:

The spirit of the game remains mostly intact, but there are a few changes that we play with. First of all, whenever someone draws a monster, the person who drew it has to roar menacingly and threaten the other players with it, who then have to scream in terror before yelling "Go away, monster!" However, if you happen to draw the blue furry monster, he's not bad and doesn't roar, but is instead one of the teddy bear's Mommy and gets placed appropriately on the board near the teddy bear.

Also, we have always played a more cutthroat version, in which you do not pass the room item to other players if you draw one you already have. It instead gets placed back into the bag and your turn is over. This ensured that Molly would draw items on her own when we first started playing (and that Mommy and Daddy could "incorrectly draw" items to make it more competitively for her. The first player to get all of their room items is the sole winner in this variant.

Finally, once the game is over, another game is played in which Daddy holds up the monster heads to peek in through the opened window on the box and Molly yells "Go away!", unless it is the blue furry monster, in which case, it is happily invited inside to join her.



Learning the Game:

The game is listed for ages 3 and up, but Molly received it for her second birthday and understood how to play after one game. Kids really shouldn't have a hard time learning the rules of the game, especially if you play the more cooperative version of the game.



The Components:

A completed room board with the four pieces on it. Photo by pigeoncamera.

The draw bag and different shaped components. Photo by TimothyP.

The eight monster pieces, including the "friendly" blue furred monster/teddy bear's mommy. Photo by TimothyP.



The components are very good and sturdy enough for a two-year old. A couple of our monsters have suffered a little wear over the last year and a half, but have held up really well. Uh, except for the caterpillar monster, but that's because my daughter chewed on it and ate half of it when she was younger. However, it does make it easier to feel that piece when drawing in the bag now.



Playing the Game:

Game play is simple and intuitive. There is not much to stimulate an adult in playing with a child, but the games literally last 5-10 minutes, so that isn't a problem. In fact, the game length is perfect for kids. When Molly had a shorter attention span at two years old, she still was able to play the game all the way through.



Scalability:

The game plays from 1-4 players and there are no rule changes for differing number of players and it scales fine. We've only every played it with 4 players, however. Even when it was just Mommy, Daddy and Molly, our daughter would insist that we set up the fourth board and she would say that it was for either Jake or Elwood and she would draw the pieces and play their turn for them. Yes, at two years old, my daughter loved the movie "the Blues Brothers" and it was her favorite movie. She used to play with Jake and Elwood as imaginary friends. Your experiences may vary.



Does the Wife Little Girl Like It?:

The most important category, since this is a kid's game. She'll play anything, but it depends on her level of comprehension of the actual game on how closely we will play by the real rules instead of her taking the pawns or figures and making them have a tea party or something. That being said, this was the first game that Molly ever had. She's now four months away from turning 4, so I thought she has started to outgrow it and I suggested that we review Chicken Cha Cha Cha as our first game review together, since I thought that was now her favorite game. However, she told me that she wanted to review Go Away Monster! instead and that it was her favorite game. So, I suppose that answers that.



The Pros:

*An excellent first game that is not complex and easy for ages as low as two to grasp it.
*Monster themes really excite a lot of kids (especially young boys and odd girls like my daughter).
*Components are sturdy and well designed for its intended age group.
*Play time is quick, which is good to alleviate parental boredom and the attention span of a two-year old.


The Cons:

*Box isn't quite sturdy enough for a kid. The window plastic has come off and the cardboard near the handle has broken off on our set.



In Molly's Words:

Since Molly is too young to read, let alone type, the rest of the review will be written in question and answer form. Molly is next to my computer and I'll be transcribing what she says and will format and add it after.

Chuckie: You want to review Monster Go Away? I thought your favorite was the chicken game (Chicken Cha Cha Cha).
Molly: No. This one is my favorite, Daddy.

Chuckie: Okay, so what do you like about the game?
Molly: Um, I like the pieces.
Chuckie: What do you like about them?
Molly: I like to pretend that it's a scrubby washcloth. (sings "scrubby-dubby-dub" as she rubs a bed on her arm, pretending to take a bath)
Chuckie: Okay, Pixie, but what do you like about the pieces when playing the game?
Molly: Picking them.
Chuckie: Are the different shapes?
Molly: Yes.
Chuckie: Can you tell the shapes apart when you pick them out of the bag?
Molly: Um, sometimes. And sometimes... Guess what, Daddy?
Chuckie: What, Sweetie?
Molly: This is going to be really funny.
Chuckie: Okay, what is it?
Molly: Sometimes you pull out a MONSTER! (She laughs at this.)

Chuckie: Okay, Pixie. What do you do when you pull out a monster?
Molly: Um. (She pauses for a couple seconds, then screams.) Aaaaaahhh! Go away monster!

Chuckie: Is the game too hard?
Molly: Um, no. But the other one's hard. (She may be referring the Chicken Cha Cha Cha, but she plays that one fine.).

Chuckie: Is it too easy?
Molly: No. A little bit though. And, Daddy?
Chuckie: Yes?
Molly: Can I have some chapstick on?
Chuckie: When we're finished here, Pixie.
Molly: Okay.

Chuckie: So, who do you think would like this game?
Molly: Um, let me see. Um, Mommy and Daddy and Molly.
Chuckie: Do you think other kids would like to play this game?
Molly: Yeah. But not Ellen. She likes zombies, not monsters.

Chuckie: How old do you think you need to be to play this game?
Molly: Um, three. (She holds up three fingers)
Chuckie: Did you know that you started playing it when you were two?
Molly: Yeah.
Chuckie: Were you too young for the game then?
Molly: Um, no. Because I was going to be three next.

Chuckie: The game has monsters in it. Is it too scary for little kids to play?
Molly: No. They aren't scary monsters. Unless they bite you.

Chuckie: So how would you rate this game?
Molly: Um, you mean stars? Uh, sixty ten stars.
Chuckie: Out of how many?
Molly: Uh, one hundred sixty ten eleven! Daddy, can I give it moons now?

Chuckie: Sure. How many moons would you give it?
Molly: Three.
Chuckie: Out of how many?
Molly: Three. And, Daddy. You almost forgot the suns!

Chuckie: Okay, how many suns would you give it?
Molly: Um, one.
Chuckie: Out of how many?
Molly: With my yellow crayon. I'll show you. Daddy, can I have some paper?



Overall:

Go Away Monster! is an excellent first game for a child. The monster theme may frighten off some, but it is supposed to be empowering and showing that you have control over the monsters. For my daughter, aversion for monsters was never an issue though. The game has the perfect play time for the simple fare and it has entertained my daughter for a year and a half now and apparently still is among her favorites.

Chuckie:


Molly:
Sixty-ten stars out of one hundred sixty-ten-eleven stars.
Three out of three moons.
And one sun with a yellow crayon.

How To Train Your Dragon

How to Train your Dragon

Me: Being a parent means that you often end up with your child wanting to watch really shit movies like The Tooth Fairy (for the record, that’s also what Grandparents are for). However, on occasion, you get a little lucky and end up with your child wanting to see something that isn’t too terrible, like Monsters vs. Aliens. But, if you are really lucky, your three-year old daughter ends up being a little geek and really likes the Lord of the Rings movies and wants to go and see movies about dragons in the theatre.

Anyhow, How to Train Your Dragon is an animated movie that is set in a Viking land where they are at constant war with dragons. The dragons raid the Viking lands and the Vikings try raiding the Dragon lands, but have never found their nest. This has gone on for 300 years. Since it is a kid’s movie, the standard formulaic plot happens with the obvious misfit kid.

Ultimately, you know the destination of the movie and there are really no surprise twists or turns in the pretty standard plot, but even though it is a straight, well-known path, the ride is a still an enjoyable one. For standard story plots of kid’s movies, at least this is a theme and setting that I can get into. It really appeals to the old school Dungeons and Dragons geek in me. And apparently we’ve been raising our daughter to follow in our geeky footsteps.

Anyhow, there is little to say about the predictable plot. But, there are a few other things to comment on. We caught the movie in IMAX 3-D. By IMAX, however, I don’t mean a huge arcing surrounding screen that is usually reserved for movies about climbing the Himalayas; I mean the kind of IMAX theatre that AMC pays a fee for in order to use the brand name and attach it to one of their existing main screens.

However, it was a large screen. Though it was the same size that it was before it became an “IMAX” screen. But we had good seats at a large screen and it really brought to my attention the level of texture mapping on modern digital animation. The skins and textures were gorgeous. There was a lot of fine detail on the texture skins, enough that they showed small scars, minor blemishes and even pores on the character model flesh. That was really interesting to watch.

This was also the first 3-D movie that I’ve seen that the 3-D effects actually worked for. See, the problem with wearing glasses is that in every 3-D movie I’ve seen prior to this the effects don’t work right. Putting the 3-D glasses on over top of my glasses positions them too far from my eyes and sets an extra lens between the 3-D glasses effect and my own eyes (from my regular glasses). The distance effect and the problem with the extra set of lens ends up parsing the 3-D incorrectly and I end up seeing double (or shadow reflections on the lens of my real glasses) or a hazy, broken effect. The other option that I would have is to take off my real glasses and just wear the 3-D glasses. However, the problem is that I cannot see. So I get blurry, fuzzy things sort of popping out of the screen at me. That kind of sucks as well. So I have usually not gone out of my way to see 3-D movies. The last 3-D movie I saw in a non-Disney World theatre was Coraline, where I had my standard problems with the 3-D effects.

However, the 3-D effects and glasses for this movie actually worked for me. There were a few instances of shadowing and double effects, but they were minimal. So, I can comment and actually say that the 3-D effect was pretty good. The problem with 3-D movies, however, is that they produce them with the realization that they will also be shown in a standard 2-D format, either on other screens or after the DVD release. What I noticed about this movie is that they did some depth of field effects where the foreground character would be out of focus as they focused on something in the background. That’s fine in most movies, but it doesn’t really transfer to 3-D.

When we saw Coraline in 3-D, Molly wore her 3-D glasses throughout the whole movie. In this one, however, she said that it was too scary in 3-D, so she went pretty much the entire movie with her glasses off and watched the movie with the screen being a little odd looking since she didn’t have glasses on. I would peek out from under my glasses to see how she was viewing it, and you get some doubling effects depending on where in the foreground an item is supposed to be, but it isn’t so bad that you cannot tell what was going on.

And it wasn’t the things popping out of the screen at her that made the movie scary, but rather, she thought that the Viking chieftain tended to yell more when she had her glasses on.



Molly: (Molly and I are at my parents’ house and everyone else is asleep, so I am transcribing this by hand on a notepad. Later, I’ll transfer it over to the computer.)

Chuckie: What did you think about the movie, “How to Train Your Dragon”?
Molly: I liked the black dragon and I cheered for him.
Chuckie: Yes, you were a very good cheerleader in the movie. You were chanting, “Go black one! Go black one! You can win it! You can beat the red one!” when he was fighting the other dragon.
Molly: Mm-hm.
Chuckie: I’m sure the people sitting around us were thrilled with your cheer-leading.
Molly: Yup.

Chuckie: So, did you like the movie?
Molly: Um, yeah. Getting more excited now. You had to wear special glasses and the dragons and the people jumped out of the screen and were all like “RAAR”!
Chuckie: Shh. People are still sleeping, Sweetie. Anyhow, um, you didn’t want to wear the glasses in the movie.
Molly: I have them on now, Daddy. She makes fake glasses with her thumb and forefingers in a circle and holds them over her eyes.
Chuckie: Okay. But you seemed really excited about the glasses. Why didn’t you want to wear them in the movie?
Molly: Because they made the movie scarier. And, Daddy?
Chuckie: Yes, Pixie?
Molly: This is a really good Devil Dog. She takes another bite of the Devil Dog she has been munching on.

Chuckie: So, what did you like about the movie?
Molly: It was – um, the girl.
Chuckie: Astrid?
Molly: Yeah, I liked the girl.
Chuckie: What did you like about her?
Molly: Daddy, your voice is getting a little quiet.
Chuckie: That’s because people are sleeping, Sweetie.

Chuckie: What else did you like about the movie?
Molly: I liked the boy.
Chuckie: Hiccup?
Molly: Uh-huh.
Chuckie: What did you like about him?
Molly: I just liked him.

Chuckie: What was your favorite part?
Molly: All of them are my favorite part.

Chuckie: So, what didn’t you like about the movie?
Molly: It was too scary.
Chuckie: What was too scary about it?
Molly: The guy screaming.
Chuckie: The Viking chieftain?
Molly: Mm-hm. He shouldn’t have yelled so loud. He should have known he was scaring me.

Chuckie: So, how would you rate the movie?
Molly: Scratching at a small scab under her nose. I can’t take this thing off because it’s a boo-boo, Daddy.

Chuckie: So, how many stars would you give the movie?
Molly: Um, a star egg.
Chuckie: Out of how many.
Molly: Just a star egg.

Chuckie: Do you think people would like this movie?
Molly: Mm-hm.

Chuckie: Who do you think would like the movie?
Molly: Um, dragons.


So, that’s our review. I thought that it was predictable and the plot is kid’s story fluff with nothing deep. However, it is a beautiful movie and the setting is one that I can really get into. So while the plot is a well-worn straight road through the country, it is enjoyable enough if you just sit back and peer out the window and watch the landscape. However, I will say that I did enjoy the fact that they did majorly scar and deform the major character by the ending. That was the closest to a twist that there was in the movie.

I give it three out of five stars with the warning that it is a straight-forward story.
Molly gives it a star egg and recommends this movie to dragons. Also, if it gets a little intense, apparently the Viking leader yells a bit less in two dimensions.

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Me: I had wanted to see the Fantastic Mr. Fox in the theatres, but didn't have the chance. Actually, even if I didn't have a kid, I would have gone to check it out. I really dig Wes Anderson. Not in the "too cool for the room hipster" kind of way that seems to be the most popular way to appreciate his work right now, but more in the sense that I think that he is a very capable director and writer and I was most curious how he would handle a children's story.

Now, I never read the book when I was a kid, but it was written by the same guy who wrote "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", so I kind of assumed that it would be one of those stories where even though it is geared towards children, there was no hiding the fact that evil or darkness can always be lurking around the corner. Apparently I was right.

Usually, I watch and review a movie with Molly and I shit all over the flick, but this was a really good movie. I mean, exceptionally good. Visually, it was stunning. It is stop motion and it isn't as fluid as Nightmare Before Christmas, but the herky-jerky motion gives the movie so much more character. And what I found interesting is that despite being filmed with 3-D models, most of the movie took place on a 2-D plane. That is to say, there was no sweeping panning in or out, but rather most of the movie was side-scrolling as if up, down, left and right were the only options for movement. That isn't a flaw. It was character.

George Clooney was perfectly cast for the voice of Mr. Fox because, and I still stand by this statement that I made years ago and have been taunted for it, George Clooney is charming. Meryl Streep does the voice of his wife Felicity and really, she is always excellent. The rest of the cast is really just rounded out by the usual cadre of Wes Anderson's stable of actors.

Now, the thing about the movie is that it is deep in its simplicity. In such a way that Spike Jonze created a film about childhood that was misinterpreted as a movie for children with Where the Wild Things Are, similarly the Fantastic Mr. Fox is a movie that is deep enough for adults while still having cute foxes running around to occupy children.

The movie is about our nature and what we really are. Mr. Fox steals chickens with his wife for a living, then as they find themselves trapped in a cage with an irate farmer and a shotgun coming their way, his wife tells him that she is pregnant and if they survive, she wants him to give up this lifestyle for something less dangerous. Well, they escape by digging out and he becomes "respectable", but yearns for his old life.

His child now twelve, Mr. Fox wants one last caper and moves his family next to the three meanest farmers in the land and decides to steal from them. He has a disconnection with his son, perhaps because there is a subtle layer of blaming him for taking away his adventurous life. You see, Mr. Fox escaped one trap (the farmer's cage), but merely found himself in another trap: a domestic lifestyle with a respectable job.

He pulls off the thefts, but his wife is savvy enough to realize what he is up to, but Mr. Fox goes too far and the revenge obsessed farmers join forces to hunt down the fox responsible, which also endangers the other animals in the forest. But the movie really explores a lot. Now, with their lives endangered and everything looking bleak as the farmers refuse to give up, Mr. Fox's wife gets upset with her husband and the grief he has brought everyone. The excuse he gives her? That he is a wild animal and it is what wild animals do. He cannot deny that part of himself, even as he wants to be what his wife would like him to be. There is the wild animal in him and he cannot deny it. As thing get even bleaker from the repercussions of Mr. Fox's last caper, his wife says one of the most profound things I've ever heard in a children's movie. She tells him, "I love you, but I never should have married you."

Still, what made the movie for me is that throughout it, Mr. Fox mentions from time to time that he is not afraid of wolves, but he has a phobia of them. Then, after successfully rescuing his nephew and escaping the farmers and exacting a revenge upon them, he sees a wolf during his escape. All of the animals are bipedal in this movie and wear fancy clothing. All, but the wolf. He is the true spirit of a wild animal. He is the true metaphor for real freedom. Mr. Fox pauses as he sees the wolf in the distance who also sees him. The wolf cannot speak English (or at least does not), but they still communicate. They offer one another a salute of sorts, then go on their way. Mr. Fox, who always claimed that he was just a wild animal sees the true essence of what a wild animal is. And there is respect between them and the wolf goes on its way. The wild nature of this last great adventure leaves Mr. Fox, symbolized by the wolf heading off into the wilds. Mr. Fox is free to be a parent to his son and a husband to his wife now. The wild animal is free. This allows him to live out the rest of his life under a grocery, his wild nature free from him finally at last.

That scene really did give me chills. It was beautiful.

So much of the movie was beautiful, in story and in visuals. Despite the unusual nature of the film (herky-jerky stop motion), Wes Anderson made it a Wes Anderson movie. From the get go, it looked like a Wes Anderson film. His characters even dress like they are in a Wes Anderson film. The cross section 2-D plane of the 3-D figures looked like the 2-D cross-section of the submarine in Life Aquatic. This movie was a real treat and I wish I saw it in the theatre instead of the small screen just to really appreciate the beauty of it more.



Molly: (As usual, I will be transcribing as much as I can from what she says. Her review will be in a Q&A form, due to her age. This is a real transcript of our conversation and she's sitting next to me as I write. I'll format it afterward)

Chuckie: What did you think about the movie, "The Fantastic Mr. Fox"?
Molly: Um, I didn't like it.
Chuckie: Really? Why not?
Molly: 'Cause.
Chuckie: Because why?
Molly: Because the guy shoot the tail.
Chuckie: He shot the tail off of the fox?
Molly: Mm-hm. I didn't like that part. But I liked the rest.

Chuckie: What was the movie about?
Molly: They tried to save the other fox. Then they saved the other fox. And, Daddy, the rat was bad.

Chuckie: What was your favorite part of the movie, Pixie?
Molly: The ending.
Chuckie: What did you like about the ending?
Molly: The animals all danced. Then you and me danced. And you picked me up and danced me and I was really high.

Chuckie: So, you didn't like parts of it, but do you think that it was a good movie overall?
Molly: Mm-hm. And Daddy...
Chuckie: Yes, Pixie?
Molly: Abby hit me in the head with a bucket.
Chuckie: What?
Molly: At school. Abby hit me in the head with a bucket and she didn't say she was sorry.
Chuckie: Well that wasn't nice of her, Sweetie. But let's talk about the movie, okay?
Molly: Okay, Daddy. The rat was really bad.

Chuckie: Was it a good movie?
Molly: Mm-hm.
Chuckie: What was good about it?
Molly: Everything. The girl fox was my favorite.

Chuckie: Besides the tail getting shot, what didn't you like about the movie?
Molly: When the rat was fighting. And the wolf. Hey, Daddy?
Chuckie: Yes, Pixie?
Molly: She reaches up and pats my chin.You need to shave your beard.
Chuckie: I don't know, Sweetie. I like it.
Molly: But it's hurty.

Chuckie: So, Pixie, how would you rate the movie?
Molly: Huh? You mean stars?
Chuckie: Sure, if that's how you want to rate it.
Molly: Um, fifteen stars.
Chuckie: Out of how many?
Molly: I don't want to say how many.
Chuckie: Okay, why not?
Molly: So I can be mysterious.

Chuckie: Um, okay. Well, Pixie, is there anything else that you want to say about the movie?
Molly: It was a good one. Oh, and Daddy...
Chuckie: Yes, Sweetie?
Molly: I give it nine moons. What are you writing, Daddy?
Chuckie: I'm typing what you are saying so that our friends can read it and know what you said.
Molly: Oh. Well I said "Cha-la-la-la-la-la-la-la." You should write that.
Chuckie: Okay. Will do.

Chuckie: So, do you think people should see this movie?
Molly: Mm, yes. Everyone should. And Emily and Conner should . They would like it best.


So, there you go. I thought the movie was beautiful and had a lot to say despite its simplicity. It looks, feels and sounds like a Wes Anderson film. I didn't read the book as a child, but it still seems like a Roald Dahl story similar to "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", where there is still darkness and evil even if you are in a child's storybook world. Even if you don't have children, I would suggest that you check the movie out.

I give it four and a half out of five stars.
Despite being distracted while watching the movie at home and being a little put off by the symbolic castrating of Mr. Fox by shooting off his tail, Molly gave it fifteen stars. However, it is a mystery as to what the higher end of that rating may be. She also gave it nine moons and thinks that I should shave off my goatee.

Alice in Wonderland

Alice in Wonderland

Me: I didn't really have too high of expectations for Alice in Wonderland going into it. I wanted to like it, but didn't think that I would. You see, here's a dirty little secret that I've come to realize only somewhat recently. Tim Burton is a shit director. Let's break it down and think about that for a moment.

I loved Nightmare Before Christmas, however, that wasn't directed by Burton. It was based on characters he created, but he produced it. That's it. Now for every decent movie Burton really directed, I can name a bunch of other ones that were shit.

What good movies did he direct and what shit movies off-set those you ask?
• Pee-wee's Big Adventure was good and fun. However, if you think Burton can do a fun, light movie geared for kids, you need to consider Charlie and the Chocolate Factory which was utter crap and a terrible remake of a great movie.
• Batman does not stand up very well, but I will give it a passing grade because it at least made Gotham City seem like a comic book city. However, Batman Returns shits on that legacy and off-sets any positive in the vision in the first movie by the sheer crap of the second. And if you think that Batman Returns really wasn't that bad, you haven't seen it in a while. Watch it again. It stinks. So they cancel one another out and Burton cannot do good, dark comic book movies.
• Beetle Juice shows that he can make a fun, off-kilterly dark movie. Well, Mars Attacks proves that he can wreck that theme just as well.
• Well, surely he can tell a touching tale that is fantastic and heartfelt and Big Fish is proof of that. Well, the fantastic attempt at being heartfelt in Corpse Bride was just awful. In fact, I think he wanted to direct it only because people keep assuming he directed Nightmare Before Christmas and James and the Giant Peach. But he didn't. People who are better directors than him did.
• What about gothic suspense tales? Surely he must be good at them? Well, we just assume he is because he's Tim Burton. In reality, Sleepy Hollow was boring and stumbled through a supposed plot and Sweeney Todd was a mediocre rehash of a story, music and theatre presentation that already existed in a far superior vision.
• And while I think that Ed Wood is a truly fun and excellent movie, Tim Burton introduced us to the Planet of the Apes remake. For that alone he should not be forgiven.
• Edward Scissorhands is a unique vision of suburbia and while it is disjointed, I will have to say that overall, it isn't a bad movie. However, he made the Planet of the Apes remake. Yes, I mentioned that in regards to the last movie, but it really was shitty enough to cancel out 3-4 good movies he may have made.

So anyhow, after scientifically proving that Tim Burton is crap by using the above formula of cancellation, I didn't go into Alice in Wonderland expecting much.

Anyhow, Alice in Wonderland falls into an annoying habit that too many retreads of the Wonderland stories do. They don't follow through with Lewis Carroll's books (yes, there were two), but rather lazily just assume that the Disney version was accurate. It wasn't. First of all, most post Disney versions mesh the Queens from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Queen of Hearts) and the Queen from Through the Looking Glass (the Red Queen who is a chess reference and the counterpart to the White Queen).

Also, I've always wondered why the Hatter has become such an icon of the Wonderland stories. He is never represented correctly in other media. Do you know why they had a continual tea party in the book? Because the Hatter was sentenced to death for "murdering time" by singing horribly to the Queen of Hearts. However, because Time was upset at the attempted murder, he froze the Hatter and company eternally at 6:00 for a forever tea. Still, we always get the wacky and zany Disney version of the Hatter. In the movie Depp lisps a little and tries to be silly and goofy, but it just doesn't work.

Anyhow, Burton's movie is predictable and bland and the entire third act dissolves into an action flick. And a poorly directed one to boot. There is little depth or interest here, but it is a pretty world visually that Burton has created. Still, too many things were done simply because they could be done and not because they were good choices. Depp's eyes were increased in size by 20% or so digitally to give him that look. There was no need for it, however. His overall look was very distracting, in my opinion. And the Red Queen's head was enlarged. This was unnecessary as well and was rather distracting. If it was done to "be true to the illustrations", that would be fine. But if that was the case, then you would think that Burton would have kept the Hatter closer to the illustrations. Also, the movie wasn't made to be 3-D, but that was something that they added after the fact because of Avatar, so that's another visual effect that was completely unnecessary in the film.

However, if you were looking for a dark and gothic vision of Wonderland through more adult eyes, American McGee's Alice (a computer game) has surprisingly done a much, much better job. American McGee's later stuff really sucked though, but Alice caught my attention not because of the (poor) game play, but because the story kept me wanting to find out more, so I would play to clear a level to keep the story going.


Molly: (I will be transcribing as much as I can from what she says. Her review will be given in Q&A form, primarily due to her age. And this is a real transcript of our conversation. She's sitting next to me at my pooter right now. I'll format it afterward.)

Chuckie: What did you think of the movie, Alice in Wonderland?
Molly: Um, I didn't think anything of the movie. I just sleeped.

Chuckie: Okay, fair enough. But you didn't fall asleep until the ending. But what did you think about the parts you were awake for?
Molly: Hm. For the bunny rabbit chasing. He was running. Like this. Runs around the room and ends up over by the teevee. I'm over here now, Daddy.
Chuckie: Okay, Pixie.
Molly: Oh, and the cat, Daddy. He turned his head all around like this. She spins. And he took the man's hat. And they were all like this. Purses her lips and pats them with her fingertip and goes "hmm".

Chuckie: What was the movie about?
Molly: Alice.
Chuckie: What about Alice?
Molly: She was running to get the bunny and she fell. Then the bear monster fighted her and scratched her.

Chuckie: What was your favorite part of the movie?
Molly: Alice.

Chuckie: Was it a good movie?
Molly: Yes.

Chuckie:What was good about it?
Molly: The ending.
Chuckie: I thought you were asleep for the ending.
Molly: Nope. She is lying. She was dead asleep and was awake right up until the actiony fight with the Jabberwocky.

Chuckie:What happened in the movie?
Molly: Look, Daddy, I have ghost hands. Sticks her hands under her white dress that she has been inexplicably wearing over her shoulders this entire time and lifts her hands under the dress and goes "woooooooo" like a ghost.
Chuckie: Ah, yeah. Okay. Um, How would you rate the movie?
Molly: Nothing.
Chuckie: What do you mean?
Molly: Nothing at the end.

Chuckie: How many stars would you give the movie?
Molly: Um, five.

Chuckie: Out of how many?
Molly: Counts to herself for a few moments. Out of fourteen. I want to do the moons

Chuckie: Okay, how many moons would you give the movie?
Molly: Ten.
Chuckie: Out of how many?
Molly: Out of Arctica.
Chuckie: What is it with you and Arctica?
Molly: Chronalonda. That's a new word I just made up for window. We need to do the suns now.

Chuckie: Uh, okay. How many suns would you give the movie?
Molly: Thirteen. Suddenly frantic and waving her hands under her white dress on her shoulders. Wait! I mean fifteen!
Chuckie: Out of how many?
Molly: Out of fourteen.
Chuckie: You know that you gave it more suns than you said it could have, right.
Molly: Mm-hm.
Chuckie: Okay, just checking.

Chuckie: Do you think people should see this movie?
Molly: Yes.

Chuckie: Who do you think would like this movie?
Molly: Molly.

Chuckie: No, no, Pixie. I mean what kinds of people would like this movie.
Molly: Just Molly. And not the other Mollys. Just this Molly.


So there you go. I thought that the movie was dull and predictable. It was visually interesting, but at the same time went overboard with some of the visuals for the sake of doing them. The story was supposed to be a tale of empowerment, but really it just went through the motions of developing Alice as a character and didn't give any real meaning to her empowering. Just as she fought the Jabberwocky because the scroll told her she had to, the character merely became empowered just because the obviousness of the plot dictates that she had to. The epilogue wrapping up the empowerment at the end was also rather silly and forced and was there in lieu of actual character development showing it truly.

I give it a generous two stars out of five.
Molly gave it five out of fourteen stars with ten moons out of Arctica. However, she also gave it fifteen out of fourteen suns, which I imagine must be very good as far as suns goes. However, ultimately this movie is only for Molly. And if your name just happens to be Molly, it doesn't matter. It's for this Molly specifically.