Rango 2-D

Rango 2-D.

Rango 2-D is an odd movie. It's not quite for kids, but it's not quite for adults. It isn't quite whimsical, but isn't quite a gritty Western. It seems to pay homage to classic Western movie themes, while at the same time it is almost mocking of them and reaches too many times outside of that genre. This isn't to say that it is a bad movie, just an odd one.

As far as plot goes, it is really rather cookie-cutter in a lot of aspects. Rango is a lost lizard who wanders into town; he creates boastful lies about his past to impress the townsfolk who believe him; he accidentally kills the towns nemesis which cements the townsfolks' opinion of his heroics and is made sheriff; he bungles his way into an investigation; he is confronted publicly about the lies of his past and leaves town in shame; he has a metaphysical moment of realization that he can rise to be the hero; he returns to town and the townsfolk no longer like him, but he ends up saving the day with newfound bravery that he didn't have when first confronted by the bad guys.

The whole "lie about your past and be believed, only to be confronted about it and leave in shame, then return to be the hero" trope is very overplayed.

But anyhow, there are things to like about Rango: first of all, it was in 2-D. That's right, it was a CGI movie that didn't try to pad its box office numbers by giving an unnecessary third dimension to a two dimensional film (and plot). Secondly, I love westerns and watching this movie, I realized one of the reasons why I like them the most: Western soundtracks fucking rock. Hans Zimmer did the music for the movie, but did it with a definite homage to Ennio Morricone. This tribute is obvious with the Rango soundtrack including the "Ride of the Valkyries " played on banjo, which pays homage to Morricone's recomposition of portions of that score oddly in the soundtrack to "My Name is Nobody" (I believe the song is "The Wild Horde"--it's worth checking out).  Yeah, I'm a little bit of a Western movie geek, but more of a Western soundtrack geek.

The movie itself has a few odd problems to it. For example, the movie begins with Rango being a lizard in a human's terrarium that ends up being lost in the Nevada desert. So, humans are a part of this movie, but as soon as Rango is away from them, scale leaves the movie and gekos are a tall as tortoises which are as tall as hares which are as tall as opossums and frogs. However, the bad guys in the movie, the hawk and the rattlesnake are enormous in comparison to all of these characters. But that is a small thing and easily overlooked.

The plot is really very simple and it is plainly obvious who the real bad guy is behind the story and that leaves no mystery at all. The simplicity and obviousness of that makes it seem more like a movie for kids than adults, but the number of murders and violence through the plot makes it seem more for adults than kids.

The biggest glaring issue with the film is when Rango leaves the town, ashamed of his true past being revealed to the townsfolk, he embarks on an existential journey where he crosses a highway through traffic to encounter the "Spirit of the West", which is Clint Eastwood (referred to by Rango, however, as "The Man With No Name"). Now, the Spirit of the West is human (or at least in human form) and talks to Rango directly, letting him know what heroes have to do and that this is his story. Rango then follows some walking cacti to the source of the town's problem. The problem is that the walking cactus can be taken metaphorically, if it wasn't for the fact that it lead him to a physical location and solution. Looking into some stuff about the movie afterwards I figured out why this occurred: Gore Verbinski directed the movie. He also directed the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. And like the Pirates movies, he shows that he has no ability to meld metaphor and existential journeys into plot without it being a jumbled, confusing physical mess (look at the Davy Jones' locker/dragging the pirate ship behind Jack Sparrow in his desert purgatory/million crabs of the voodoo woman mess from "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End").

My last problem with the movie is that it wasn't quite a homage to classic Western films because it just shallowly recreated each stereotype from those movies: Beans was the lizard girl who's father died and she was refusing to sell her ranch to the (obviously) evil and corrupt mayor, the crow was the Native American tracker who was deputized by Rango to hunt down the robbers in the movie, the little weird rodent girl who kind of had a Joey/Shane relationship with Rango, the villainous rattlesnake who came into town to call out Rango but gave a chance to let him walk off in shame instead of just calling him out and killing him. I could go on and on. And these stereotypes are needed in an homage, but something needs to be done with them to make them into homages and not just clichés. The plot itself took a lot from "Once Upon A Time In The West", but didn't really do much with it.

Anyhow, it is an odd film and not exactly bad, but just missing a lot of heart that would have made it good. It's not quite a Western homage, but more of a clichéd Western setting and a clichéd Western tale with clichéd Western characters that pulls a metaphysical, unrelated and awkward existential journey right out of its ass and sits it there on the screen for  us to take as a physical reality.

But at least it wasn't in 3-D.



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


Chuckie: So, what did you think about the movie, Rango 2-D?
Molly: I liked it.

Chuckie: What did you like about it, Pixie?
Molly: Where the boy kissed her.
Chuckie: Which boy?
Molly: Remember, Rango? Him. That's the only boy that kissed anyone in the movie.

Chuckie: Which girl did he kiss?
Molly: You know who. There's only one girl. The one has was talking to and she froze. We don't know her name, right?

Chuckie: It was Beans.
Molly: Oh. I forgot.

Chuckie: So, tell me what happened in the movie?
Molly: The snake came and he said, (She puts on a deep, gruff voice, trying to imitate the snake from the movie.) "If I see you again, I'll kill you."

Chuckie: Then what happened?
Molly: Rango got away. But then he came back after he met a rat or a mole. I'm not sure what it is.

Chuckie: It was an armadillo.
Molly: What that heck is that? Armygillo? Daddy, are you making that up?

Chuckie: No, it really was an armadillo. I'll show you pictures.
Molly: Of real ones?
Chuckie: Yes. (I go online and start to show her pictures of armadillos after a web search for them.)
Molly: Aw, they're so cute.

Chuckie: So anyway, what happened after he met the armadillo?
Molly: He went back to town and the bad guy got both of them in there where the water was. And then they escaped and the water came back and they lived happily ever after. The end.

Chuckie: What did--
Molly: I said, "The end."

Chuckie: Of the movie, but not our review, right?
Molly: Nope. Of everything.

Chuckie: Okay. (I stop asking her questions and begin to format. I really was going to end the review like this, but then she started to talk to me again a few moments into my formatting.)
Molly: Daddy, I was just kidding. The review isn't over.

Chuckie: Okay, so you kept mentioning that you didn't need glasses during the movie. Were you happy it wasn't in 3-D?
Molly: Yes, because I don't like the glasses on. Besides, one time when we were in there with a different movie, I had glasses on and I was eating Gummi Bears and I forgot I had my glasses on and I was like "What? Where's my Gummi Bears?" because I couldn't find them because the glasses made everything darker.
Chuckie: So that's your big problem with 3-D movies? It's harder to find your Gummi Bears?
Molly: Yeah. And sometimes my popcorn.

Chuckie: Okay. Well, was there anything that you didn't like about the movie?
Molly: No, I liked it all.

Chuckie: Tell me about the character of Rango.
Molly: He was a lizard, remember?
Chuckie: Yes, but what about him? What was he like?
Molly: A lizard.
Chuckie: I mean, what kind of person was he, Sweetie?
Molly: A lizard person.

Chuckie: How did he act?
Molly: Funny and nice. And like a lizard.

Chuckie: Okay, who was--
Molly: Daddy, remember he was funny because he made everyone laugh and he was nice to the girl, Bean, because he kissed her.
Chuckie: Yeah, good points. So, who was your favorite character in the movie?
Molly: The girl who frozed and was named Bean.

Chuckie: Okay, remember when Rango met the Spirit of the West?
Molly: What Spirit of the West?
Chuckie: The old man he met in the desert.
Molly: The human being?
Chuckie: Yes, Pixie. Tell me about what that was.
Molly: He said hello and talked to Rango, but I don't remember what they talked about, maybe golf? Daddy, can I do the stars now?

Chuckie: Sure. How would you rate this movie?
Molly: With stars.

Chuckie: Okay, fair enough. How many stars would you give this movie?
Molly: Thirty.
Chuckie: Out of how many?
Molly: In Africa.
Chuckie: So, thirty stars in Africa?
Molly: Mm-hm. And don't forget the moons and suns!

Chuckie: Okay, how many moons would you give it?
Molly: Thirty-four.
Chuckie: Out of how many?
Molly: Out of July.

Chuckie: And how many suns would you give it?
Molly: Thirty-one. That's big.
Chuckie: I suppose so. Out of how many, Pixie?
Molly: In the United States of America.

Chuckie: Who do you think would like the movie. Pixie?
Molly: Everyone that watched it. And I think Mike would like it because people smoked in the movie and he could smoke with them.

Chuckie: Do you think that this movie is good for kids?
Molly: Uh-huh. Unless they don't like lizards.

Chuckie: Anything else that you want to say about this movie, Sweetie?
Molly: Yes, smoking is bad for you. Mike shouldn't smoke cigarettes because then Doc-Opoly can get out the back door and run away.
Chuckie: So smoking is bad because it gives our cat a chance to run away?
Molly: Yeah.



So that's our review. This is a strange movie that has all of the trappings and stereotypes of a Western, but without ever taking on a heart of its own and instead safely lingering in the clichéd. I'm very pleased to see a non-3-D CGI animation release, even if the movie didn't quite find it's place.

I give Rango two out of five stars. The computer animation is very beautiful and the soundtrack is great. However, the music is the only true Western homage. Everything else is a weak stereotype that never finds a heart of its own. The movie also tries to be too silly (with burping fire after drinking whiskey and swallowing a cigar) and too deep (with finding the Spirit of the West to guide the character's journey along) and fails to bridge the gap in between, leaving the scenes to be juxtaposed awkwardly instead and never committing fully to one or the other to establish a cohesive theme and find a real audience.

Molly gives it thirty stars out of Africa, thirty-four moons out of July and thirty-one suns out of the United States of America. She also thinks that people who smoke might find something relatable in the movie, even if it is a bad habit that puts our cat's escaping at risk.

Yogi Bear

Yogi Bear

I grew up in a weird generational era. I'm too young to have grown up in the era of the mainstream of cartoon icons; I was born to suffer through the secondary money-whoring era of a lot of cartoon icons. I didn't watch the original Scooby Doo episodes as a kid. Instead, I watched the Scooby Doo/Dynomutt Hour rehash and I was at prime Saturday morning cartoon watching age when Scrappy Doo was introduced.

This also holds true with other Hanna-Barberra cartoon icons. I never watched Yogi Bear or Huckleberry Hound or any of those other famous classic cartoons. Instead, I was subjected to the childhood era of Captain Caveman and the Teen Angels, Jabberjaw, The Gary Coleman Show (where a young, jovial animated Gary Coleman played a dead kid sent down from Heaven to do good deeds to try to earn his halo and be released from what I suppose was Purgatory), Kidd Video and Pac-Man. So, basically, as a kid, my first run Saturday morning cartoon shows sucked a lot of dick and I was out of sync with both the classic era of Yogi Bear and Scooby Doo cartoons and the more modern resurgence of cartoons that were no longer limited to just the three networks green-lighting and animated shit to put on Saturday morning because they knew asshole kids like me would watch them despite how awful they were.

So anyhow, my exposure to Yogi Bear wasn't from the original series, but rather from watching him as the captain of the Yogi Yahooeys in the Laff-A-Lympics, where his team would compete against the Scooby Doobies and the Really Rottens. So, I didn't really ever get to see Yogi Bear as a picnic basket stealing bear, but more as a cheerleading team leader in a fucking messed up weird Olympic-esque team sport. Somehow though, I still knew about the picnic-stealing background. It's just one of those weird things that you just universally know. The other thing that I recall about Yogi in those episodes was that his team really underperformed. Most of the episodes resulted in a win by the Scooby Doobies (who had the more popular tie-in programs).

I also recall being so excited as a kid when watching the episode that the Really Rottens won, that I had to call my dad at work to tell him about it. This also taught me an early childhood lesson: that cheating and general malfeasance occasionally wins.

Anyhow, despite not ever actually having seen an episode of classic Yogi Bear as a kid, I still knew going into it that this movie was going to be really, really shitty.

Since I didn't watch the first run Yogi cartoons, I don't know if the voice actor from Laff-A-Lympics was the same one who did the original voice or not. But I still know generally what his voice is supposed to sound like. Dan Ackroyd voices Yogi in this movie. His voice sounds nothing like Yogi Bear's voice.  I am only assuming that they hired him not because of his ability to mimic the Yogi voice, but rather they asked the star of "Doctor Detroit" to voice him because of the excellent acting skills that he has demonstrated in "Caddyshack 2", "Dragnet", "My Step Mother is an Alien", "Sgt. Bilko" and "Blues Brothers 2000". Unfortunately, Dan Ackroyd's acting in Yogi Bear is slightly worse than it was in the movies I just listed.

The movie is really more boring than bad (though it is still plenty bad). But it essentially revolves around Yogi Bear, who everyone accepts as a talking bear (noted by the nature documentary filmer that talking bears are pretty rare) and his escapades as he tries to steal picnic baskets, much to the chagrin as the Park Ranger Smith (who, by the way, I always erroneously thought was named Ranger Rick due to my never watching the cartoon as a kid). Anyway, the mayor of the city that I suppose the Jellystone National Park is in wants to run for governor, but he has bankrupt the city. He comes up with a plan to make money by redistricting Jellystone Park as agricultural land and then selling off the logging rights, which will generate enough income to put the city in the black AND give each person in the city a $1000 check to help influence them in his election for governor. I am assuming all non-city residents in the rest of the state will have to vote for him based on merit and not payoff. Going by the license plates of all of the vehicles in the movie, this is taking place in Montana.

So, anyway, the mayor refers to a legal statute that allows him to redistrict any municipal property that is not generating enough income, thus allowing him to redistrict and sell off logging rights to Jellystone Park, which is approximately $40,000 in the red for this quarter.

As a point of interest, this is a kid's movie that I am describing. Yes, I just spent two paragraphs explaining the mayoral redistricting plans for under-earning public property based on failing projected quarterly earnings. But fear not, high-jinks will shortly ensue!

So, with one week before the end of the fiscal quarter, Ranger Smith realizes that he has to try to push the park's earning potential to quick bring the books in the black. With the help of a nature documentary maker and cold-fish love interest, Ranger Smith decides to make a push for an economic model with reduced season pass admission pricing to entice a fiscal upswing. The movie points out that season passes are usually $50, but they are reducing that to $40 for the special. So Ranger Smith only needs 1000 people to get season passes and he'll be performing in the black and everything will be fine. To entice the market and to serve as advertisement, he purchases a shitload of fireworks for a celebration to lure people in. The movie never gave exact numbers on how much the fireworks cost, but I would assume that it had to be at least a $1000 in fireworks (or, 25 more season passes he needs to sell). One would think that this model serves to show why Jellystone is constantly performing in the red.

However, as the story unfolds two things occur to mess up Ranger Smith's plans. First, this is fucking Montana and I would assume that even owning a house out there is roughly equal to camping in the fucking woods, so there is no real incentive to buy a season pass. And second, Yogi Bear acts like an asshole idiot and ruins the fireworks display and scares away all of the campers before they can purchase their season passes.

So, the mayor, to further stymie Ranger Smith's plans, relocates him out of Jellystone Park. I really don't know the national park system too well, but through all of this, I really thought that a mayor really wouldn't have any jurisdiction over a national park. But whatever. It's a movie for the kiddies, right? So back to the impending budgetary crisis.

The mayor seems to have succeeded in ensuring that Jellystone Park will close its fiscal quarter in the red and can therefore redistrict it to agricultural lands and lease out the logging rights to their business interests, creating a budgetary surplus for his city with a big enough windfall to offer a $1000 stimulus check to everyone in his city. Kid's movie. Remember that.

However, at the last moment, the nature documentary maker discovers that the "pet" turtle that Yogi and Boo-Boo have is actually an endangered (heretofore thought to be extinct) kind of turtle. They race to get the turtle, since proving that it lives in the park will mean that it will become a Federally protected habitat for the endangered creature. However, the mayor's men discover this as well and they race to try to get the turtle first, realizing that if they kill it, then they can continue with their redistricting plans.

Well both sides race to the turtle and find that it is being kept in a picnic basket. Calling on Yogi's expert picnic basket stealing methods (which, up to this point in the movie have all failed catastrophically and has often ended with crushed or destroyed food and basket), he steps up and fortunately steals the turtle in the picnic basket and they end up saving the day and park at the end.

I have a ton of problems with this movie. First of all, why the fuck does a mayor have jurisdiction over a national park? Secondly, if I was fucking bored to tears about the budgetary projections of this quarter's fiscal earnings of the park, then what the fuck was my four-year old supposed to think? Third, while all is well and good for Jellystone Park, the end result is that they never clarified in the movie if the park was still performing in the red, and besides that, the outlying major city will be forced now to declare bankruptcy, which will most likely result in defaulting on pensions of older citizens and a huge gouging of municipal jobs, resulting in fewer police and fire fighters, making the city around Jellystone Park much less desirable and dangerous. And with the loss of municipal jobs, Ranger Smith may find himself out of a job since apparently his position is city-sanctioned and they will replace him with a federally paid Park Ranger.

But finally, my biggest problem comes from the fact that Yogi is celebrated as "saving the day" at the end of the movie. Sure, he got the picnic basket and the turtle, but that shouldn't mean he did anything good. Karmically, he's just even at best. They wouldn't have needed him to get the picnic basket with the turtle in it if Yogi hadn't fucked up the fireworks display. Had he not screwed that up, then Ranger Smith's plan would have worked and he would have gotten enough money to get the budget out of the red and the park would have been both saved AND profitable. However, all Yogi did was in some way atone for his early firework fuck up. And, actually, he was really rather shitty at saving the turtle anyhow. I mean, really everyone had to risk themselves and their lives to get the turtle by the end. With Ranger Smith's plan, the only thing that was at risk was his hands being blown off by the fireworks. And if Ranger Smith's plan had worked, the nature documentary maker woman still would have found the footage of the turtle during her editing, so you would have had the Federal monetary windfall added to a park now operating in the black.

So, Yogi should not have been celebrated as a hero at the end of the film. He was a douche and a fuck up and, really, could have killed numerous people throughout the film by his fireworks fiasco or by his taking the documentary maker and Ranger Smith off of a waterfall at the end of the movie. The only reason why anyone lived was just shit luck.

Again, I never watched the original Yogi Bear cartoons, but the team captain of the Yogi Yahooeys never put his team at such careless risk of life and limb. This Yogi Bear was just a self-absorbed dick.



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


Chuckie: What did you think about the movie, Yogi Bear?
Molly: I liked it.

Chuckie: What did you like about it, Pixie?
Molly: Well, um, Yogi and when he thought the planet was a donut and he said, "I don't know who is steering the ship!"

Chuckie: Okay, that didn't really happen like that, but that's fine. What was the movie about, Sweetie?
Molly: Yogi Bear.

Chuckie: Okay, yeah, but what happened in the movie?
Molly: Um, Yogi tried to steal his lunchbox. Well, Yogi tried to steal all of the baskets. Maybe even all of the baskets in the whole wide world.

Chuckie: What did you like about the movie?
Molly: A lot of things.

Chuckie: Like what?
Molly: When they were trying to take the picture. And where the turtle putted his tongue on the man right here. (Molly points to her forehead right above her eye.)

Chuckie: Was there anything you didn't like about the movie?
Molly: Nope.
Chuckie: You liked it all?
Molly: Yup.

Chuckie: What did you think about the 3-D? You took your glasses on and off a lot in the movie.
Molly: Parts of it were a little scary. Who wants a bear coming out of the screen right onto them?

Chuckie: Fair enough. So, did you think that the whole fiscal budgetary plot with the mayor was a little too much for kids to really grasp?
Molly: I don't even know what that is.
Chuckie: Uh, why the bad man was trying to close the park.
Molly: Yeah, grown-ups.
Chuckie: Grown-ups?
Molly: I think grown-ups should only watch that part.

Chuckie: Did you think that the movie was funny, Pixie?
Molly: Yes.

Chuckie: What was funny about it?
Molly: Where the frog turtle put him tongue on him.

Chuckie: Who was your favorite character in the movie?
Molly: The girl.

Chuckie: Really? The one making the nature movie?
Molly: Uh-huh.

Chuckie: Why?
Molly: Because she was the only girl.

Chuckie: So, do you think that the movie played too much from the male's point of view?
Molly: No, but there should be more girls. I'd put Tinkerbelle in it. And Rapunzel, and Barbie and Ariel in it. (Suspiciously, these are all the toys that she has near my computer desk at the moment.)
Chuckie: What would they do in the movie?
Molly: They wouldn't steal baskets, that's for sure.
Chuckie: Okay, but what would they do?
Molly: They'd catch ladybugs in the ground and it would be in 3-D with glasses.

Chuckie: Why did they try to close the park down?
Molly: I don't know. Just because they were mean, I guess.

Chuckie: How did they save the park?
Molly: Because they found the turtle.

Chuckie: What did you think of Yogi Bear?
Molly: He was funny.

Chuckie: Did you think he was bad?
Molly: A little because he would steal picnic baskets without getting permission first and he ruined the fireworks.

Chuckie: What was your favorite part of the movie?
Molly: Where all the fireworks went ka-ploom!
Chuckie: And they nearly killed all of the people on the lakeside beach.
Molly: Yeah, I guess. But they ran away.

Chuckie: What age do you think the movie is best for?
Molly: Fourteen.
Chuckie: Fourteen?
Molly: Mm-hm.
Chuckie: Any other ages?
Molly: Seventeen and twenty.

Chuckie: Why so old?
Molly: Because older kids can watch it too.

Chuckie: But was it good for four-year olds?
Molly: Yeah, but probably better for fourteen year olds.

Chuckie: So, how would you rate this movie, Pixie?
Molly: One hundred fifteen.
Chuckie: Stars?
Molly: No, one hundred fifteen.
Chuckie: Just one hundred fifteen?
Molly: Is that big?
Chuckie: Possibly. Out of how many?
Molly: Fifty-one.
Chuckie: Then, yes, that's a lot.
Molly: Good.
Chuckie: One hundred fifteen what though?
Molly: STARS!
Chuckie: You didn't say stars.
Molly: Yes, I did, Daddy. And anyway, it's always stars. And do you want to know how many moons?

Chuckie: Sure.
Molly: One hundred and eight and seventeen and eighteen. Is that big?

Chuckie: Yeah.
Molly: Then why didn't you say "wow"?
Chuckie: Sorry. Uh, wow.
Molly: That's better.

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

Chuckie: Anything else that you want to say about this movie?
Molly: The bad man showed pictures of himself on the screen. Why did he want to be king?
Chuckie: He didn't want to be king, Sweetie. He wanted to be governor.
Molly: What's governor?
Chuckie: It's someone who is in charge of the whole state.
Molly: Oh. Well, he shouldn't be governor since he was a bad guy.

Chuckie: Is that it then, Pixie?
Molly: (Yelling like Ranger Smith.) Yoooooogiiiiiiiiii!!!



So that's our review. I really didn't have any extensive foreknowledge of Yogi Bear before heading into the movie, but I knew it was going to suck. Our viewing experience this late (catching a shitty Christmas release in February) meant that we had the theater almost all to ourselves. The only other person there was some creepy guy in his 30's or 40's sitting in the front row all by himself. We kind of avoided him. I think if you are a creepy pedophile, you should probably time your kid's movie experiences closer to the opening weekend.

I give it a half star out of five stars. The movie is actually more boring that it was bad. This isn't a good thing. The 3-D was, as is the trend these days, pointless and only a means of padding your numbers. The acting was atrocious in the movie and really the plot would appeal more to conservative economists than it would to kids or fans of Yogi Bear.

Molly gives it one hundred fifteen stars out of fifty-one stars and one hundred and eight and seventeen and eighteen moons. She thought it was a good movie and didn't find any real flaws to it, other than the lack of girls. I agree with her, but I don't necessarily think that adding Tinkerbelle, Rapunzel, Barbie and Ariel collecting ladybugs would be the most positive feminist addition to the plot. But it would take more screen time away from Yogi, the mayor and the cardboard ranger and nature documentary maker, so it would still be an improvement.

Santa Claus's Powers vs. Santa Claus's Science

Father Christmas using the powers of science to deliver presents.

My daughter is a little odd. Yeah, I know that's not really a big surprise. But a few weeks ago while discussing Santa Claus, I made some mention of him being magic, a charge which she quickly and adamantly denied. She said that Santa wasn't magic. I tried to explain that he was and she shot me down again, very adamant that he was not. Any time that I've brought something up about Santa, she's flatly denied that Santa does it with magic and instead uses "science" to perform whatever task. Then again, this is also the girl who drew me, Jessica, Isaac and Jo pictures of her "hypothesis". Anyhow, these have been interesting and entertaining (to me) discussions about Santa, so I thought I would take our review style and interview my daughter about Santa's powers, so that I can keep it and show it to her later.  Now, this isn't a review of Santa Claus; I'm sure he would get a ton of stars, suns and moons. However, this is just a dialogue about how my daughter "scientifically" explains how Santa works.



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



Chuckie: So tell me what you know about Santa Claus.
Molly: Um, he makes toys. And he has, he has--Rudolph has a shiny nose. And then, so, so, then, um, the other ones liked him. And Santa's elves wrap up presents and put them onto him sleigh and then he delivers them to the good girls and the good boys.

Chuckie: Okay, so you and I have been talking about this: Do you think Santa is magic?
Molly: Um, no.
Chuckie: Why not?
Molly: Because he does it all with science.

Chuckie: Well, his reindeer fly. Isn't that magic?
Molly: Uh-uh, because he trained them to fly.
Chuckie: Well, can you train our cats to fly then?
Molly: No, because we don't have enough money to train them to do that. I know how much money we need for that: fifty-hundred and twenty-one. Santa had enough money to train his reindeers that.
Chuckie: Well, if we had that much money, could we train our cats to fly?
Molly: No, because Santa trained his reindeers from babies.

Chuckie: Okay, well, he makes so many toys. That has to be magic.
Molly: No, because he uses a bucket thing to put the pieces in and then the machines make them into the right shape and then the last thing that is important is that he doesn't do it, but the machines make it into a present. And then his elves load them up into his sleigh.

Chuckie: Well, how can Santa know if everyone is good or bad. Isn't that magic?
Molly: No, he checks his short list of naughty kids so he doesn't deliver them presents and the long list is for the good kids who will get presents.

Chuckie: But how do the names get on the lists? Magic?
Molly: No, because he knows.
Chuckie: How does he know?
Molly: Because he's Santa Claus. Santa Claus knows everything.
Chuckie: But isn't that magic?
Molly: No, it's just smarts.

Chuckie: How does he get to every house in the world in one night? Isn't that magic?
Molly: No. 'Cause Santa Claus can deliver presents because he doesn't get tired for a long time.
Chuckie: If he never gets tired, isn't that magic?
Molly: No, he can deliver presents because when he's done, he can go to bed if he likes.

Chuckie: How can he go up and down chimneys? Isn't that magic?
Molly: No, sometimes he can and sometimes he can't, because he uses magic dust on him from a bag.

Chuckie: Aha! He has a magic dust bag. That means he's got magic.
Molly: No, he got it for a birthday present when he was a little baby Santa Claus. Besides it costs fifteen dollars.
Chuckie: So anyone can buy a magic dust bag if they have fifteen dollars?
Molly: Yeah, but guess what?
Chuckie: What?
Molly: They're sold out.

Chuckie: Well, who gave him the magic dust bag?
Molly: His mom and dad. They had enough money.

Chuckie: What kind of magic does his magic dust bag let him do?
Molly: Go up chimneys.
Chuckie: Then if he didn't have his bag, he couldn't deliver the presents. So Santa needs magic to deliver presents.
Molly: No, no one needs magic to just get up a chimney. It just makes it easier.
Chuckie: What if he didn't have his magic dust bag at all?
Molly: He could use the doors or windows to get into the houses.

Chuckie: Santa works with elves. Aren't they magic?
Molly: No. Live elves aren't magic. They just make toys and load him sleigh.

Chuckie: How does Rudolph's nose glow? Isn't that magic?
Molly: No, he was just born with a glowing nose. Like how I was born with green eyes and you were born with green eyes and mommy was born with brown eyes.
Chuckie: So, it's a genetic thing?
Molly: Um, yeah.

Chuckie: What are Santa's reindeer's names?
Molly: Rudolph, and um, Charlene, and uh... Wrinkled? And there are some other ones. But Rudolph is the important one.

Chuckie: Wait a minute! How does Santa fit all of the presents into one bag? That has to be magic!
Molly: No, he has a big, big bag that stretches.

Chuckie: How does he know what presents go to what kid? Magic?
Molly: No, he knows because he writes their names on the presents.

Chuckie: How does he eat all of the cookies and drink all of the milk at every single house? Magic?
Molly: No, he's just really hungry and really thirsty a lot. Sometimes he gets too full. Even him reindeers get something to eat.

Chuckie: Why does Santa give presents?
Molly: Because he's nice. Except to naught kids. But they're naughty.
Chuckie: Are you nice?
Molly: Mm-hm.

Chuckie: Is there anything else that you want to tell people about Santa Claus?
Molly: Wait! We never talked about Mrs. Santa Claus.

Chuckie: Okay, what do you know about her?
Molly: She has white hair.
Chuckie: Is she nice?
Molly: (Molly nods.)

Chuckie: Oh, wait! I know! Mrs. Claus is magic and gives Santa magic powers, right?
Molly: No, she's not magic. She's just an old lady who married Santa Claus.

Chuckie: Ouch. Okay. So, is there anything else you want to tell everyone about Santa Claus or Christmas?
Molly: I think people should be helpful and good to each other.



So, that's Santa's powers, each grounded in scientific explanation. If there is magic in Christmas, it's tucked away in a little's girl's firm belief in science. Oh, and while I was formatting this, Molly came back over to me and we had this exchange:

Molly: Daddy?
Chuckie: Yes, Pixie?
Molly: Are you surprised that I know so much about Santa?
Chuckie: Yes, I am. You know a real lot.
Molly: Are you proud that I know so much about Santa and science?
Chuckie: Of course I am, Sweety. I'm always so proud of you.
Molly: Even though you tried to trick me to think that Santa was magic?
Chuckie: I wasn't trying to trick you, Pixie. We were just talking about things. I'm very proud about how you stuck to your beliefs.
Molly: Thank you. Daddy, when you're done, can we write a thank-you letter to Santa for giving everyone presents?
Chuckie: Sure, Pixie.



So whether you believe in the magic of the season, or the science of the season, Merry Christmas everyone.

Harry Potter #'s 1-6

A battered Ron Weasley card and a magic wand.

I am not really a Harry Potter fan. I'm not sure why, but it never meshed with me. It really has all of the markings of something that I should like, I mean, wizards, magic and mythical creatures. The early books and movies are geared towards kids, and I usually don't have a problem with kid's movies. But for some reason it never meshed with me.

There are some things that I admire about the whole Harry Potter phenomenon. For example, it got a generation of kids incredibly eager to read. That is amazing and I have  a lot of respect for it. However, with that, came an older generation of adults who started to co-opt the books and stories for themselves. That may be where the main rub I have with the Potter stuff is: adults took it over.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I likes me some childish geeky stuff, but I have perspective about it. The geeky adults who dress up like Star Wars characters are a sort of peer in some of my hobbies and interests. And I'm fine with that... until said "adult" snatches away the last limited edition Boba Fett action figure with the artificially rare limited edition blaster pistol from a seven year old who was reaching for it who really only wanted to play with it.

That's what happened with Harry Potter. You have these great kid's books that became an adult hobby and interest. Adults storm the bookstores and push little kids aside to get the book first. Merchandise becomes artificially geared towards adults instead of being marketed for the children who should be reading the books. You have adults who claim the stories and interest for themselves and somehow the children who it was originally designed for are left behind. Just a few weeks ago as of this writing, the fourth World Quidditch Cup was held in New York City. It is a two-day event in which a bunch of Quidditch teams from around the world gather to play for the championship. Quidditch. That game that makes no fucking sense. But anyhow, the teams are made up of adults. They come from 42 different colleges and universities. Adults. These aren't kids pretending to play Quidditch. They are college students running around with brooms between their legs playing a sport that makes no sense even when the brooms can fly. But that just shows the culture of how much adults have co-opted Harry Potter. These are adults who are so engaged in this who take it serious and take them like they are written for adults, but have forgotten that the stories also have jelly beans that taste like throw-up in them.

That isn't to say that I don't think that adults should enjoy the stories. I'm fine with that. They don't really work for me for whatever reason, but I have no problem with anyone who likes them liking them. But remember that they are kids stories. I feel the same way about every schlub who spent $5000 on their Stormtrooper uniform that they wear out at any chance they can. I'm perfectly fine with that. And most of them will play along with children as well when they see them. Hell, I dress up in Renaissance clothing and go to the faire. But, when I'm there, I engage the kids that I see because I understand that even though I enjoy all of this, the faire is there for them. So when I'm at the faire, I engage the kids I see. I cannot even count the number of times I've taught kids that I don't know how to run around and play on the maypole or any of the other activities that are set up there.

Having an interest and liking for stuff for kids is perfectly fine. So long as you remember that is what your hobby or interest was designed for.

But anyhow, the movies. We've caught up and watched all of the movies with Molly so that we can see the newest release. Molly has really enjoyed them and has become obsessed with Ron Weasley and he is currently her biggest crush.

The movies themselves, as I said, never did it for me. But they take place in the hidden world of wizards and witches, but focusing primarily on the teaching at Hogwarts. When someone first arrives at Hogwarts to be a student, they are "sorted" into one of four different magical houses: House Obviously Good, or House Vaguely Evil, or House Never Mentioned Again, or House Afterthought. Obviously most of the protagonists are sorted into House Obviously Good, while the character foils and antagonists are sorted into House Vaguely Evil. I think the movie actually has different names for the Houses, but these are rough estimations.

This sets up one of the problems that I have with the stories: They introduce us into such a large world, then limit what they show us of it. Really, it's not until the fifth movie before they introduce a character who is not a part of House Obviously Good or House Vaguely Evil who has more than one line. We never get to see or explore this grand world from more than a singular point of view, which is a shame.

This is further reinforced by how Harry Potter-centric Hogwarts is. Yes, yes, I know the stories are called Harry Potter and the Object du Jour, but still. I kind of agree with the other students who in the stories had felt some Harry Potter backlash. I mean, it just would make each of them feel so much more insignificant to see every aspect of their school year revolve around one student.

Now part of the reason why the school is so Harry Potter-centric is because he is the student who has been marked for death by the greatest villain the wizard-world has ever known. That seems to be a rather lofty risk to place on the other students at the school whenever these attempts on Harry's life take place, and other students are routinely injured or killed as the bad guys move against Harry. I just think that it would have been a much smarter and much less dangerous idea to have someone decide to privately tutor Harry in magic instead of risking the lives of every student at Hogwarts. But maybe that's just me. But if Molly's preschool classmate Jovaughn had magickal jihadists gunning for him and her preschool classmates were routinely being blown up by magical attacks or bitten by giant basilisks with poisonous bites, I might either move Molly to a different school or ask if Jovaughn could be privately watched elsewhere.

Part of the problem that Harry and everyone else is in is due to the fact that no one in the movies communicates with one another.  Seriously, I think that a good 90% of every problem or issue in each of the stories would be resolved if people would just talk to one another. Instead, no one trusts anyone. Harry knows what is going and knows that someone is after the Sorcerer's Stone, but does he tell Dumbledore? No. Pity that, because Dumbledore might have been able to ferret out the baddie earlier and save sending the 10 year olds down into a horribly trapped secret basement. The same works the other way as well. Everyone knows that Voldemort is gunning for Harry, but no one tells him about his parents or background or Voldemort. They decide to let the information trickle to him a little bit each year, which is rather ghastly, considering that the greatest evil known to wizard kind is out to kill Harry, but there's no need to fill him in on all the details.

But perhaps my biggest problem with the wizard world is the gross inconsistencies in their rules and law. Everything is both rigid and arbitrary. Take the Goblet of Fire, for example. Harry Potter's name is offered as one of the contestants at the TriWizard's Tournament (a tournament which is so dangerous that kids routinely die as a part of it, and yet, they continue to hold it), however, Harry is too young to be eligible in the tournament. The judges determine that obviously powerful dark magicks were used to get Harry chosen, but decide that despite the tampering, the rules forbid him from turning down the role as champion. This, by the way, hurts Harry's reputation, as all of the students think he cheated to get his named chosen, causing problems for him this year. This, as mentioned earlier, could have been solved by communication and the judges pointing out that dark magic was used to tamper with the goblet and it wasn't Harry's doing, but instead, they keep that to themselves and Harry is picked on all year. Anyhow, the rules are so strict that they cannot have the 14 year old Harry refuse to compete. Yet, the rules are so lax that when Harry saves two people in the second challenge, Dumbledore just arbitrarily gives Harry second place in the competition, despite him technically coming in third. Another sort of recurring arbitrary theme in the stories are the points being assigned to or taken from each house in a decidedly haphazard and random manner.

Perhaps most of all, there is the magic and schooling. I would imagine that the books cover this better and some of it is lost in the movies. For example, I would assume from what I saw in Goblet of Fire that the TriWizard Tournament was such a big deal that there were no classes at all that year because they were not shown or focused on at all in the movie.

But the one thing that really always baffled me about the schooling was the students learning how to transform animals into goblets in the Chamber of Secrets. That seems like such a fucking random and useless spell, but they learn it nonetheless, and (this is important) Ron practices turning his rat, Scabbers, into a goblet. Now in the movie, I assumed that something that random would have to have a pay off, such as Harry having to collect the Basilisk venom at the end and having to transform Hedwig into a goblet to collect or some shit like that. You know, to give a payoff for an otherwise absolutely useless spell. But, ultimately, no. There is no pay off. They all just learned a pointless spell that seems to serve no purpose...

Until the Prisoner of Azkaban. There, we learn that Ron's rat, Scabbers is really Peter Pettigrew who has been masquerading as a rat for the last 12 years and is really a terrible bad guy and horribly wicked. They try to catch him, but he turns into his rat form and runs and is too quick for them. Now, this is perhaps the one fucking useful time to cast a transform animal into a goblet spell! Ron used it on Scabbers before, so we know it will work on him. He could not fucking run away if he was a goblet. But do they actually put the worthless spell to its one practical use? No. They let him get away.

When it comes down to other spells and such, there are inconsistencies in their uses. For example, no one believes that Harry saw Voldemort and everyone thinks he is lying. However, we later learn that Snape is teaching Harry how to protect himself from a spell that can be used to see another person's memories (not to mention Dumbledore also has a way of extracting memories from his mind and placing them into a pool that other people can view). Now, considering threat that Voldemort poses, don't you think it would have made sense for them to employ these methods to have a physical demonstrable means of showing and proving that Voldemort exists to everyone else? No. They would rather just fall back on the whole lack of communication motif.

Oh, and lastly, Quidditch makes no fucking sense. Okay, first of all scoring. Goals are worth ten points each. Fair enough. However, whichever team's seeker catches the Golden Snitch scores 150 points and ends the game. That's worth fifteen times a goal. That would be like in American football, teams are trying to get touchdowns worth 7 points each, but at the same time there is a sub-game going on and whichever team's special teams gets a field goal first scores 105 points for their team and the game is over. Yeah, whoever triggers the game's end condition is likely to cause a blow-out and win for their team. I haven't read the books, but have been told by people who do that you do not actually rank teams by wins or losses, but rather by (non-Snitch) points scored in the game. This makes the Golden Snitch part of the game even more pointless, or at the very least, the fact that it gives points. To add to this, the Golden Snitch end-game trigger means that games are of no set length. A Seeker could catch a Snitch in 5 minutes, or, according to the books, last for several months with no Seeker being able to get the Snitch. Now, in the case of games lasting several months, I would imagine that a 150 point swing wouldn't be that big of a deal, but I do think that this is the exception and not the rule. Oh, and all of this is further confounded by the fact that spectators are routinely casting spells, hexes and enchantments on the play on the field. However, this is the sport that adults are now emulating as they run around with broomsticks between their legs.

But other than that, the movies are fine.



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



Chuckie: What did you think about all of the Harry Potter movies, Pixie?
Molly: I liked one of them.

Chuckie: Which one?
Molly: The one where he drinked the poison.

Chuckie: Oh, where Ron drank it?
Molly: Mm-hm. Besides I know his whole name: Ron Weasley.

Chuckie: That's right.
Molly: Why didn't Ron know that there was poison in it, Daddy?

Chuckie: Well, no one knew. Malfoy poisoned it to try to poison Dumbledore, but Ron drank it by mistake.
Molly: Oh yeah. And Ron drank it all so Dumbledore didn't drink it and so him wouldn't get poisoned from it.

Chuckie: Uh, yeah. I guess Ron really was the hero there, huh?
Molly: Yup.

Chuckie: Did you like any of the other movies?
Molly: The cup one. And the one where the things came out and scared Harry Potter and were pulling him apart.

Chuckie: The Dementors?
Molly: Yeah. Them.

Chuckie: So, tell me what the Harry Potter movies were about?
Molly: Hey Daddy, you know what I'm going to name my magic wand?

Chuckie: What, Pixie?
Molly: "Magic Sting". That way I can use it to sting out the spider's eye that Ron is afraid of and then I'd save him. (Molly giggles)

Chuckie: Okay.
Molly: You know what's kind of silly about the spider one?

Chuckie: What's that, Pixie?
Molly: Ron was scared of the spider then it was on roller-skates and it couldn't stand.

Chuckie: Who is your favorite character in the Harry Potter movies?
Molly: Ron.

Chuckie: Why?
Molly: Because he looks cute.
Chuckie: Why do you think he looks cute?
Molly: Because of him orange hair and because of the card when he smiled.
Chuckie: The trading card that you got?
Molly: Mm-hm.

Chuckie: Okay. What does Ron do in the movies?
Molly: He's afraid of spiders in one of the movies. He made Hermione cry because her liked him and the girl ghost said, "Someone threw a book at me" and Ron said, "But it would go right through you" and Ron got caught by the monsters and I don't know why, but Harry saved him under the water and the bad girls under the water said, "You can only take one" and he broke him wand...

Chuckie: Slow down.
Molly: Okay, then the dog bit Ron's leg and it hurt him and the woomping tree wouldn't let them get to Ron, but then it swinged them down and they ended up near Ron and Ron played Cabbage--

Chuckie: Quidditch.
Molly: Twiddidge.

Chuckie QUID-DITCH.
Molly: TWID-DIDGE.

Chuckie: Close enough.
Molly: Um, well, Ron played...um, that game and he won at it and was the best because I cheered for him.

Chuckie: Which was your favorite Harry Potter movie?
Molly: When Ron was real sad when his wand broke, because that was kind of funny.

Chuckie: Some people think that the movies get too dark and scary for kids. What did you think about that?
Molly: Um, I think for some kids.

Chuckie: How about you?
Molly: No.

Chuckie: They weren't scary for you?
Molly: Not at all.

Chuckie: So, who does Ron like in the movies?
Molly: Hermione. And he was jealous and then he got friends again, but he thought he liked that other girl, but him got tired of her and she wrote a heart on the window for Ron Weasley, but he didn't like her anymore because she was getting on him nerves.

Chuckie: Was there anything that you didn't like about the movies?
Molly: Um. Yes.

Chuckie: What?
Molly: Well, when she said something and the book said, "Raaar!"

Chuckie: The Monstrous Book of Monsters?
Molly: Mm-hm.  Daddy, you know what?
Chuckie: What, Sweetie?
Molly: This is really funny.
Chuckie: Okay, what is it?
Molly: Do you know what Ron really likes to eat?
Chuckie: What's that?
Molly: Pie! (She covers her mouth and laughs.) Daddy, maybe if I see Ron we can eat apple pie and cheesecake together.

Chuckie: How would you rate the movies?
Molly: You mean moons and stars? I don't want to do suns anymore, Daddy.
Chuckie: Okay, why not?
Molly: Because I'm getting too old to give suns now, Daddy.

Chuckie: Oh. Okay. So how many stars would you give the movie?
Molly: One hundred and thirteen and one hundred stars.

Chuckie: Out of how many?
Molly: Africa.
Chuckie: (laughs)
Molly: Daddy, I'm serious. Out of Africa.

Chuckie: Okay. Out of Africa. How many moons do you give the movies?
Molly: Sixteen and one moon.
Chuckie: Out of how many?
Molly: Out of July 14.  And Daddy, that's for Harry Potter. Want to know how many stars and moons I give Ron Weasley?

Chuckie: Okay, how many stars?
Molly: One hundred and thirteen and one hundred and one hundred and ten and one hundred.

Chuckie: And how many moons?
Molly: One hundred and one and seven hundred.
Chuckie: Out of how many?
Molly: Both of them are from my place.

Chuckie: Okay. Do you think people would like the Harry Potter movies?
Molly: Yes.

Chuckie:  So, who do you think would like the Harry Potter movies?
Molly: Me.

Chuckie: Well, yeah, but besides you?
Molly: I think Edison and Mason, but I think Mason will be a little scared, but him would laugh at the spider part. But, Daddy, why was Ron scared of spiders?

Chuckie: I don't know.
Molly: Then we'll have to read the book about Ron.

Chuckie: Is there anything else you want to say about the movies, Pixie?
Molly: Yeah. Ron Weasley is going to be at my school today, Daddy?

Chuckie: Really?
Molly: Yup. At 8:30.



So that's our review. This really was an undertaking over the course of a little over a week. I figured that she would like the first couple of the movies, but I'm actually rather surprised that Molly was able to follow the plot and story as well as she did in the later ones. She still didn't quite get everything, but she got enough of it to get the jist of the stories, even though the later ones were over her head.

I really can understand the appeal of Harry Potter, but it just doesn't work for me. The books get more and more dark and more and more adult as they go, which was great for the generation who were Harry's age when the books came out, but it makes it odd for 10 year old children to read all of the books now and get lost in the later ones, or for more adult readers to have to trudge through the simplicity of the earlier stories. Still, I have a lot of respect for what the books did to encourage a generation of readers. The movies, well, Molly liked them. And ultimately, that's what matters.

Molly really enjoyed watching the movies as well. She gives the movies one hundred and thirteen and one hundred stars out of Africa and sixteen and one moon out of July 14th. However, she gives Ron Weasley one hundred and thirteen and one hundred and one hundred and ten and one hundred stars and one hundred and one and seven hundred moons both out of her place. She was able to follow the main story (what happened to Ron) really well, and was able to follow most of the secondary storylines (you know, that stuff that happened to Ron's friend Harry). I was afraid that the later movies would be too over her head, but apparently her love for Ron knows no bounds and she followed through the movies.

The Hobbit

The Hobbit.

A number of years ago, my friend Mike and I were discussing Tolkien and we were idly musing whether or not when writing The Hobbit he had in mind the story of the Lord of the Rings trilogy and, more specifically, the character and role of Gollum. This was pre-Wikipedia days, so questions like that were not quite as easily answered. I had to research it through more annoying means and eventually discovered that he did not. At least not fully.

Tolkien's first edition of The Hobbit was different than the later versions since he started work on the LotR books and needed to change things, specifically the encounter with Gollum. In the original telling, Gollum is a bit more kindly to Bilbo. In the riddle contest, Gollum offers to give Bilbo a nice present if Bilbo wins. When he does win, Gollum goes to try to find the ring to give to Bilbo for winning the contest, but does not know that Bilbo has already found it and it was in his pocket. Distraught that he does not have a present to give to Bilbo now, he begs his pardon and instead offers to show him the way out of the goblin tunnels.

Not exactly the ring obsessed creature that he was in the later versions and in the sequel trilogy. So, the copy of The Hobbit that I have is the annotated version, that is full of footnotes and also has a footnote in the Riddles in the Dark chapter that recites the original version of that chapter, though I only read the nastier, more wretched version of Gollum's chapter from the newer version.

Anyway, this was by far the longest story that Molly has followed. Portions of it were well over her head, but we would have a discussion and chapter recap at the end of each chapter, and she followed it surprisingly well. Still, a lot of the story bits dragged on a bit and Tolkien really can be unnecessarily wordy at times, especially for a children's story. It's really not meant for 4 year olds. Maybe 8-12 is a better age range to really have the attention span to get through some of the long, unnecessary over-descriptions in some of the more dull chapters.

Each chapter took about 30-45 minutes to read to her, depending on their length. I am by no means a voice-smith, but I had fun with the different voices for each character to try to differentiate them to make it easier for Molly to follow. However, I found that chapters that were heavy with Dwarf-dialogue really tore up my throat.

It's also interesting to see which parts of the story really resonated with Molly. She loved Gollum (and the voice I did for him), which was to be expected. She really liked Beorn, who didn't make the cut in the Rankin and Bass Hobbit cartoon. But the minor things that she kept bringing up again and again?

1. The Dwarves bending Bilbo's forks. They didn't really, but they sing about it in the "That's What Bilbo Baggins hates" song in a sort of teasing manner in Chapter One. We couldn't get through another paragraph in that chapter without her asking me, "Why did they bend his forks, Daddy?" "Do all Dwarves bend forks?" "How's Bilbo going to eat dinner with his forks bended?" However, ten chapters later, when eating dinner with Beorn, Molly would interrupt me to say, "Those Dwarves better not bend his forks because he'll be really mad at that and he can turn into a bear and fight them if they try." And when they found and got Smaug's treasure, Molly pointed out that maybe Bilbo could get new silverware from the dragon's treasure.

2. Bilbo losing the buttons on his jacket when escaping the goblins. Bilbo slipped through a small opening that was so tight that the buttons on his jacket broke off as he squeezed through it. Throughout the rest of the book, Molly was worried about Bilbo catching a cold because he wouldn't be able to keep his coat closed. The peril of the dragon guarding the treasure was nothing compared to the possibility of a chest-cold for Bilbo. However, Tolkien did address this; at the end of the book, he does point out that Bilbo had replaced the buttons on his coat with gold buttons bought with the treasure he obtained. However, even that happy coat button ending wasn't enough for Molly. When we finished the book, the first thing she asked me was, "Did Bilbo ever find the buttons that came off of his coat? Because I lost my hair tie at school and then I looked and I found it later." I pointed out that the difference was that Bilbo lost his buttons in the middle of a goblin lair and he had replacements now anyhow. This seemed to pacify her somewhat, though I know that deep down inside, she's still upset about the buttons being lost.

Anyhow, I really enjoyed the experience of reading this to Molly and she really seemed to enjoy it as well.

It is an odd piece when compared to the Lord of the Rings stories. Some things don't really work in context. I mean, the Trolls (William, Tom and Bert) don't really fit in with the later trolls in the books. They are afterward in later books retroactively described as "Stone Trolls" and while they turn to stone in daylight, no other trolls do. Mountain Trolls wielded Grond (thus the siege could go into dawn) and Cave Trolls were in Moria and they hardly seemed to be cockney Englishmen wanting have tea and scones with their dead dwarves.

Also, I have to say that the proud, fierce dwarves of Tolkien's tales of glory and honor are actually a rather inept and bumbling group of thirteen in the The Hobbit. I mean, descended from a proud line of kings, Thorin and his group are routinely captured by Trolls, Goblins, Spiders and Elves. They seemed to live up to their battle nature at the end of the book, but really I can't say that until that point that Thorin really was an inspiring king.

What I find interesting about Tolkien's dwarves, however, is that Tolkien based them off of Jewish stereotype, especially ones from Medieval times. Seriously. Check out the annotated book or The History of the Hobbit to read about Tolkien's intentional influences with his dwarves. They have negative Jewish stereotypes (greedy, gold-coveting, overly proud and meddling), they have a dispossessed homeland (in this case Lonely Mountain), they were skilled craftsmen (like medieval Jewish stereotype), the Dwarven calendar in The Hobbit begins in late autumn (like the Jewish calendar) and he crafted the Dwarven language based off of Hebrew, and, like Jewish culture, it is only spoken among themselves. One of the footnotes about Dwarves in the annotated book I have is a quote from Tolkien which read, "I do think of the Dwarves as Jews: at once native and alien in their habitations, speaking the languages of their country, but with an accent due to their own private tongue." Tokien has also mentioned that they Legolas-Gimli relationship in the later books is supposed to represent "Gentile anti-Semitism and Jewish exclusiveness". The Rankin and Bass cartoon also has each of the dwarves with a very large nose, though I don't think I can necessarily tie that one in here.

But cultural metaphors aside, The Hobbit was a great experience with Molly. Peter Jackson is directing a two-part Hobbit movie, which is aligned as a prequel to his LotR movies. The thing is, the tone is too different. I'm excited to see it with Molly, but it will have to make a choice. It will have to choose either the tone of the book, or the tone of the movie trilogy. The problem is that if it takes the tone of the book, it will not feel like the LotR movies and disappoint those fans. If it takes the tone of the LotR movies, then it will not be true to the book and disappoint those fans. They really should have just let the Rankin and Bass cartoon stand as the theatrical telling of the story.

With our book read, we'll be watching that movie later and I'm sure we'll review that as well.



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



Chuckie: What did you think about the book, "The Hobbit"?
Molly: I liked the song about where they sang, "Down, down to Goblin Town!"
Chuckie: So you liked the songs in the book?
Molly: Mm-hm.

Chuckie: What about the story?
Molly: You want to know the funny part about the story that I liked?
Chuckie: Sure.
Molly: Bilbo got knocked out two times.

Chuckie: That he did. What else did you like about the story?
Molly: I liked where the goblins sang, "Fifteen birds in five fir trees."

Chuckie: So you really liked the songs.
Molly: Uh-huh. The ones the goblins sang. They sang better songs than the elves did.

Chuckie: But what about the story?
Molly: The dwarves wanted to go to the Lonely Mountain and Bilbo sneaked in to see the dragon and him got scared.

Chuckie: How did Bilbo sneak around so well?
Molly: Because him was a little Hobbit. And I can sneak around you so good because I scrunch down and I'm little too. And he had THE RING! (She says that last bit in a  sing-song voice.)

Chuckie: Where did Bilbo get the ring from?
Molly: Gollum. Him got the ring from Gollum. He found it on the ground and him got it and Gollum wanted it back, but him had a contest and if he losed them him was going to eat Bilbo and even when him losed, him tried to eat Bilbo anyway because him was really naughty. And if I was there, I would have said, "You naughty little skunk, you don't catch Bilbo and eat him. If you even try I'll stab you." Then I'd get Bilbo's sword from him and use it to stop Gollum so him didn't eat my friend Bilbo.

Chuckie: Okay, hold on. Slow down.
Molly: And I'd say, "Gollum, please don't eat Bilbo." But if Bilbo would poke me with him sword, then I'd let Gollum eat him because that's not nice and I thought Bilbo was my friend and you really shouldn't poke your friends with swords and if him is going to do that, then Gollum should eat him and I'd say, "Well, you shouldn't have poked me with your sword then."

Chuckie: Gotcha. Wow. So what were your favorite parts of Bilbo's adventure?
Molly: Hm. Let me think for a minute, Daddy.

Chuckie: Okay.
Molly: Hm. The parts when Bilbo didn't get knocked out.

Chuckie: What did you think about the Dwarves?
Molly: Well, I liked something normal about Bilbo. He got the shiny cup to show the Dwarves and they wanted it. But I know one thing, I didn't like some things because some of them died.

Chuckie: How did they die?
Molly: Well everyone gets together and they fight too many bad guys in the big war. That's what a war is. There's too many people and they bump each other and they fight each other and shoot each other. Thorin died. Thorin Oakenshield. (She sniffles over-dramatically.)

Chuckie: Did the dwarves learn any lessons?
Molly: They should have shared their treasure, but they were greedy and wanted to keep all of the gold for themselves. And there were too many at Bilbo's house and bended his forks. Daddy, did they really bend his forks.

Chuckie: No, it was just a teasing song.
Molly: No. "Crack the plates, bend the forks, that's what Bilbo Baggins hates, so carefully, carefully with the plates." See. Them broke them.

Chuckie: Okay, fine. I guess they broke them then.
Molly: Yeah, that's not nice. Thorin should have said him was sorry before him died.

Chuckie: Who else did you like in the story?
Molly: The wizard, Gandalf. Beorn, because him could turn into a bear.

Chuckie: So, did you like me reading the book to you?
Molly: Yes. Because I liked all the Goblin songs. (Starts singing "Down, Down to Goblin Town" again.)

Chuckie: Was there anything you didn't like about the book?
Molly: No, I liked it all.

Chuckie: Was the book too long for you?
Molly: Yes.

Chuckie: What parts would you leave out?
Molly: The Goblins and Bilbo. Only Dwarves.

Chuckie: So, you'd edit out the goblins and the only the only Hobbit from the book the Hobbit?
Molly: Mm-hm.

Chuckie: And just have Dwarves.
Molly: Yes, Daddy. But only one dwarf.

Chuckie: Just one?
Molly: Bombor.

Chuckie: And what would he do in your story?
Molly: He'd have a gun and shoot one goblin and that would be the end. And Bilbo could be in it, but he could just lay down because him not a much fighter.

Chuckie: That really would abridge the story.
Molly: Yup. Cause I want it shorter because it's too long for little kids. Well, not too long for this little kid, but for other ones.

Chuckie: So, how would you rate the book, Pixie?
Molly: Daddy, call me Bronwyn.

Chuckie: Okay, so, how would you rate the book, Bronwyn?
Molly: Molly Bronwyn Simon.

Chuckie: Fine. How would you rate the book, Molly Bronwyn Simon?
Molly: Miss Molly Bronwyn Simon.

Chuckie: Seriously? Okay, fine. How would you rate the book, Miss Molly Bronwyn Simon?
Molly: Sixty hundred moons.

Chuckie: Out of how many?
Molly: July 26.

Chuckie: July 26?
Molly: Yup.

Chuckie: Anything else you wanted to say about the book?
Molly: I like Hobbits because they are real small like me.



So that's our review. It really was an undertaking to read this over a course of so many nights, but both me and Molly really enjoyed it. It was a really nice bonding story for us. I think it's above the head and level for a four year old, but Molly was still surprisingly able to follow most of it. I think reading the book will make watching the movie a more exciting experience for her as well.

It's definitely a classic, but I don't think it will do that well from a Peter Jackson touch. It's not an "epic" story in the sense that the Lord of the Rings books were and by making it a two-parter, it's building it up more than it really is: a kids story about maturity of a character and the perils of greed and pride (every overly-proud character dies, from Thorin to Smaug, as a result of their hubris and pride) within a setting of childhood animism. The Rankin/Bass production has a soft-spot in my heart from watching it obsessively as a kid, and despite what it gets wrong in the story, it gets right in the theme.  Still, there were no female characters in the story for Molly to relate to, but I think that she was able to find that everyone's inner-Hobbit is genderless.

Molly really enjoyed the experience as well. She gives it sixty hundred moons out of July 26. She thought it was a little long for most kids her age and would suggest an abridged version that just has Bombur shooting a goblin while Bilbo laid down in the background. But the story has been a major part of mine and Molly's life and routine over the past month. And she's very excited to have furry feet for Halloween as she's decided to go as Bilbo Baggins.

Alpha and Omega

Alpha and Omega.

I just took my four year old daughter to a movie all about wolves fucking.

The movie, at least, had the courtesy of giving the most thinly veiled metaphor for sex that I have ever seen. But it was a very weak one and there was no mistaking it. Here's a prime example of a scene in the movie: The male wolves each pair off with the female wolves to Howling Rock, where they howl with one another in the night. The young omega has a crush on the female alpha and says, "Man, I wish I could howl with her." Then as the older wolves return from Howling Rock, one of the wolf females coyly asks her mate, "Was the howling good for you as well?"

So, howling = fucking.

Just in cast that is a little difficult to follow, I'll parse the metaphor for the remainder of the review:

So, basically, the story revolves around a young male omega wolf who has a childhood friend and crush of a female alpha. Apparently, however, the rules of the pack are that the role of the omega is to be comic relief for the pack (seriously) and the alphas hunt and protect the pack. However, rules and tradition forbid omegas and alphas from howling together fucking.

The young cubs are separated for a winter as the young alpha goes to alpha school to learn how to... um... alpha. There are no improv comedy classes for the omegas, however. They just hang around and goof off and crack jokes and ogle the female wolves and talk about how much they want to howl with fuck them.

In spring, the alpha female returns and the omega male sees her and is smitten all over again. He confides in his omega friends how much he wants to howl with fuck his old childhood friend since she's matured. They tell him that he is crazy and that he'll never get to howl with fuck a beautiful alpha girl like her.

Anyhow, there is apparently a food shortage in the valley and the wolf packs are on the verge of starvation. This is despite the fact that there are enough caribou that rush through the valley and almost stampede the hunting pack to death. But anyhow, with the threat of starvation, there is a decision to "unite the packs" and have the male alpha of the east pack howl with fuck the female alpha of the west pack so they can join as one big pack.

Even though the female alpha does sort of have feelings for her omega childhood friend, she knows her role and decides to go to Howling Fucking Rock with the other pack's alpha to howl with fuck him to join the tribes. Besides, he's strong and powerful and handsome, so she realizes that it could be worse and isn't too distraught about her duty.

Well, the pair arrive at Howling Fucking Rock and begin to howl fuck. Well, part way through the howling fucking, she realizes that he is terrible at it. Despite his strength and good looks, the male alpha cannot howl fuck for shit. So, the female alpha awkwardly excuses herself for a moment, telling the male alpha to "keep yourself ready to howl fuck, I'll be back in a minute." However, she flees, leaving the male alpha on Howling Fucking Rock by himself, keeping himself primed for her return.

When she flees, she runs into the omega wolf, who senses something is wrong because "no one leaves ten minutes into a good howl fuck." At this point park rangers shoot them both with tranquilizers and relocate them from Canada to Idaho. They are set free in a park in hopes that they will repopulate the wolf population in the park.

The omega wolf is fine with the idea of settling down and howling fucking out a few cubs with the alpha, but she needs to return to the pack. It is her duty to unite the packs and howl with fuck the other pack's male alpha no matter how off-key small he is.

So the pair start their journey back to their packs.

Meanwhile, the disappearance of the female alpha causes political problems and the packs are about the go at war with one another, because apparently they cannot get along unless the male alpha gets howled fucked.

To appease tension, the alpha female's sister, an omega, spends time with the male alpha. They soon fall in love and decide to secretly howl together fuck. However, she also realizes how bad he is at it, but slowly teaches him how to howl fuck better, by taking his time and relaxing, so he doesn't howl off-key suffer from premature ejaculation anymore.

Meanwhile, hitching a ride on the train back, the alpha female and omega male are high on the adrenaline of their adventures and decide to howl together fuck. He actually urges her to join him in this forbidden howling fucking, by telling her, "Come on, let yourself go with the moment. It can be a one-time thing." So the two of them howl fuck on the train ride back to Canada.

Back in Canada, the male alpha and female omega's howling fucking has been discovered and it causes an uproar. The packs are about to go to war when the alpha female and omega male return. She agrees to howl with fuck the male alpha to make peace between the packs. Her sister is heartbroken, and even the male alpha wants to be with the sister, but recognizes his duty.

So both packs gather to watch the two alphas howl together fuck to unite the tribes. But at the last moment, the female alpha declares her love for the omega male and the alpha male declares his love for the omega female. Everyone decides to just say fuck howl it to tradition and just go with it.

The end.

Oh, I forgot the mention the minor characters introduced in the two vegetarian hippie omega females. They had minor roles and wore flowers in their hair and it was implied that the two girls howled together on their own. The end of the movie had one of the other omega males who liked these hippie wolves with his paws around each of them, implying that the three have started howling together while the others were out having their adventure. So I guess ultimately, he won.

Anyhow, creepy metaphors aside, this is a bad movie. It's not fun bad, just boring bad. The howling/sex metaphor really makes the movie seem a lot more interesting than it really was.



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



Chuckie: What did you think about the movie, Alpha and Omega?
Molly: I liked when they got married.

Chuckie: Spoilers don't mean a thing to you, do they?
Molly: Nope.

Chuckie: What was the movie about?
Molly: Wolves.

Chuckie: Yes, but what about them?
Molly: Um. The bad wolves come.

Chuckie: Why did they come?
Molly: Because they wanted to steal the valley for themself. And the boy and girl went to Idaho.

Chuckie: Why did they go to Idaho?
Molly: 'Cause they thought they was too much wolves there and there was. So the ranger shooted them with medicine and put them in Idaho.

Chuckie: Did the Alpha girl and Omega boy wolves like each other?
Molly: Yes, but it was their rules that they couldn't get married.

Chuckie: What did you think about all of the howling in the movie?
Molly: I like when the boy and girl singed together by howling.

Chuckie: Do you know what a metaphor is?
Molly: No.
Chuckie: Good.
Molly: Why?
Chuckie: There were a few metaphors in the movie.
Molly: What is that?
Chuckie: It's when something means something else.
Molly: Oh.

Chuckie: What was your favorite part of the movie?
Molly: Um, when they howled together. (She howls.) Like the wolves that were howling after Bilbo.
Chuckie: Well, they were wargs, Pixie. And their howling meant something completely different.
Molly: Like howling monkeys?
Chuckie: No. Nothing like howling monkeys.

Chuckie: You wore your 3-D glasses more in this movie, why?
Molly: Because it wasn't bad. The wolves weren't bad ones and I only taked them off when the wolf was jumping at me so he'd stay in the movie and not get me.

Chuckie: Were there any parts that you didn't like?
Molly: Um, no. I liked it all.

Chuckie: What age do you think this movie is best for?
Molly: Four year olds and five year olds and three year olds and two year olds and one year olds and sixty year olds and six hundred year olds.

Chuckie: How do you want to rate this movie?
Molly: Um, sixty hundred stars.

Chuckie: Out of how many?
Molly: Out of stars.
Chuckie: Stars?
Molly: Mm-hm. Out of that.

Chuckie: Okay.
Molly: And one moon, Daddy, so the wolves can howl. (She howls.) Daddy, I think a werewolf must have bit me because I'm howling a lot now. I really am.
Chuckie: Well, do you remember any werewolves biting you?
Molly: (Thinks for a moment.) Um, no
Chuckie: Then you're probably fine.

Chuckie: Who do you think would like this movie?
Molly: Ellen. And, um, does Mike like wolves?
Chuckie: I don't know, Sweetie. Maybe.
Molly: Well, if him does, then he'll like it.

Chuckie: Anything else you want to say about the movie?
Molly: (She howls.)



So, that's our review. Despite the fact that it was titled "Alpha and Omega", I knew to expect wolves and not Revelations Jesus or anything, but I really wasn't expecting cartoon wolf porn. The animation was rather poor as well, kind of a crappy generic computer animation, and it looked a hundred times worse coming in after seeing Legend of the Guardians the day before.

I give it a half star out of five stars. The only reason why it got that much was because the obvious metaphor was rather amusing in some weird, perverse way. I'm definitely not a prude and have no problems about talking sex with my daughter. However, I think I would have rathered a better context than in the middle of a crappy movie, having my daughter turn to me and ask, "Daddy, why aren't they letting them two howl together because they really want to, but those guys said no?"
Molly gives it sixty hundred stars out of one star and one moon for the wolves to howl at. She enjoyed the less intense 3-D of this movie more than other films and her favorite parts were all the howling. Hopefully that's because she didn't get the metaphor.

Legend of the Guardians: the Owls of Ga'Hoole

Legend of the Guardians, the Owls of Ga'Hoole.

Me: I don't like birds. I mean, I don't have such visceral feelings against them that I would say that I hate them, but I am not fond of them. I'm not frightened or skeeved out by them; they just kind of annoy the piss out of me. Sure, blah blah, majestic and flight, blah blah. I get it, but they still annoy me. I'm not sure where it comes from, but really birds don't have a great cultural background in literature and movies. I mean, the Eagles in the Hobbit and Return of the King are just deus ex machina, the crows in Dumbo are racist stereotypes, Woody Woodpecker is a douche, Daffy and Donald are both short-fused asshole foils for their counterparts, and Heckle and Jeckle are some kind of incestuous gay magpies - or maybe they are, I've never quite figured out their relationship. And even Foghorn Leghorn, who is portrayed as the protagonist in most cartoons, is really the instigator in each situation and Jonathan Livingston Seagull is just a Taoist propaganda seagull whose nonconformity ultimately becomes the new conformity at the end of the book as he returns to find all of the outlawed nonconformist seagulls and teaches them to be just like him.

So that is what this movie had going against it with me when I took Molly to see it. But this is the time of year when kids movies stink. It's the time of year when the choices are rather limited. It's the time of year after the summer releases, but before the Thanksgiving and Christmas releases. It's the time of year when you try to get grandmom and pop-pop take your kids to the movies. But Jessica is out of town for the night, so I let Molly pick what we did.

The movie is about a pair of owl brothers who are captured by these evil owls who want to control the owl kingdoms and have some weird, unexplained magic...  or possible magnetic... device that can ground owls because of some metal flecks that they find. Anyhow, one of the brothers escapes and finds the Guardians who are legendary owls that are good guys. The other brother, however, remains with the bad owls (or "Pure Ones" - feel free to connect the really huge obvious dot for the "Master Race" analogy) and embraces their ideology and becomes one of them.

Oh, and in battle the owls wear armor. You may think that this is weird (as I did), but they later point out that some owls excel at and are trained to be blacksmiths.  Yeah... I wasn't exactly content with that gloss over myself and would have thought that a much more interesting movie would have been about the first owl who created a forge and became a smithy. Let alone all of this is rather odd when you consider that wearing metal helmets would probably be a little unwieldy  and heavy in flight for the owls.

Anyhow, the good owl brother escapes and finds a Misfit Band of Friends (TM) and ventures off to warn the Guardians. Along the way he, he finds his inner strength and his potential at being a leader and friend. Blah, blah, blah. Standard story. However, there are a couple of things worth noting about the movie.

First of all, I have no clue how much time passed in the movie. I mean, passage of time just seemed this abstract thing. The movie was 90 minutes long, so I suppose that at least 90 minutes must have passed in the story. Probably more time, but I couldn't tell you if the story they told took place over 90 minutes, 90 hours, 90 days, 90 weeks or 90 months.

Next, I have to say that for all of the computer animated movies I have seen, this one is by far the most technically beautiful. The detail is absolutely stunning and so incredibly real looking that it is amazing. It's just a shame that they took that level of intense detail and wasted it on a movie about birds.

And finally the battle scenes were fucking intense for a kid's movie billed as being "from the makers of 'Happy Feet'".  The battles in the movie would cut to super-slow motion scenes of where metal-bladed weapons used by the owls would come perilously close to decapitating another owl, but he ducks and rolls just as the blade cuts above his head. Honestly, the owl battle scenes looked like the battle scenes from 300. Then during the end credits I noticed the director: Zack Snyder, who directed 300 and Watchmen. The battles are just as intense as they are in either of those movies, but you don't see the blood flowing. But instead, you get implied gore and death, such as an owl battle helmet bouncing on the ground after a razor attack, implying, instead of overtly showing, decapitation.



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


Chuckie: What did you think about the movie, Legend of the Guardians?
Molly: Well, I liked when the eyes was white.

Chuckie: Which eyes?
Molly: I mean, the white eyes on the owls. When they looked at the moon.

Chuckie: What was the movie about?
Molly: Um, owls.

Chuckie: Well, yes, but what about them, Pixie?
Molly: Well, they scratched each other.

Chuckie: Why did they do that?
Molly: Because one of them was bad and he was trying to get the other ones gone.

Chuckie: I thought that the slow-motion battle scenes were a little over-the-top for a kid's movie. What did you think?
Molly: Um, I don't know about that.

Chuckie: Alright, fair enough, but I also thought that the battle scenes were a little intense for a movie billed as "from the people who gave you 'Happy Feet'". Did you think that the movie was mismarketed as well?
Molly: Um, no.

Chuckie: So, you think that the movie should get the Happy Feet market crowd as well?
Molly: Yes, Daddy. I have happy feet too.

Chuckie: What was your favorite part of the movie?
Molly: Well, my favorite part was where they singed together.

Chuckie: Was there anything that you didn't like about the movie?
Molly: Um, yes.
Chuckie: What?
Molly: Where the two guys fighted.

Chuckie: There was a lot of fighting in the movie, Pixie.
Molly: Yeah, but when the one fighted the other one in the fire and he fell in and was like "AAAAAH!" and I was like, "You have wings! Fly! Duh!"

Chuckie: Good point.
Molly: Thank you, Daddy.

Chuckie: Do you think that the fighting was too scary for younger kids.
Molly: Um, no. Not for me, it wasn't.

Chuckie: What ages do you think the movie was for?
Molly: Um, four year olds.

Chuckie: Why?
Molly: Because I watched it and look at me. No nightmares, Daddy.

Chuckie: Fair enough. The movie was in 3-D, but you didn't want to wear your glasses. Why not?
Molly: Because it would be scary to me.

Chuckie: What would, Sweetie?
Molly: When I put my glasses on and everything would come out of the movie and into my eyes and take me over and control me and then I'd have white eyes too.

Chuckie: (laughing)
Molly: I'm serious, Daddy. That would really happen.

Chuckie: Okay, okay. So, how would you rate the movie, Pixie?
Molly: You mean give it stars and moons and suns?

Chuckie: You can rate it however you like.
Molly: Okay, then, um... sixteen and twenty one stars.

Chuckie: Out of how many?
Molly: Um, Daddy, I don't know. Because sometimes I make the wrong choices.
Chuckie: What do you mean?
Molly: Because sometimes I make the wrong review of the stars and moons and suns and give it the wrong number.

Chuckie: That's okay, Sweetie.
Molly: Okay. Then sixteen and a hundred and thirteen moons.
Chuckie: Out of how many?
Molly: Out of two, Daddy.

Chuckie: And suns?
Molly: A hundred and one out of one.

Chuckie: Do you think that people would like this movie?
Molly: Um, yes. Excellent question, by the way, Daddy.

Chuckie: Um, thank you.
Molly: You're welcome.

Chuckie: Who do you think would like this movie?
Molly: Well, I think Eva would, but she really likes horses so she can pretend that the owls are horses then she'll really like the movie better.

Chuckie: Anything else you want to say about the movie, Pixie?
Molly: They should see it because it's a fun movie and it's great.



So, that's our review. I thought that the movie was visually stunning and an amazing demonstration of what computer animation can look like. However, the story fell short on many levels from taking the cliché route, to failing to flesh out characters to even explaining what the hell was going on and how much friggin' time passed in the movie.

I give it one and a half out of five stars. The computer animation is gorgeous, but ultimately I don't know where it will satisfy an audience. If you are really into owls, the owls look real, but ultimately don't act like owls because they have a blacksmith and forge weapons and armor for war. If you really love amazing battle scenes, well, the battles are epic, but it's hard to get past the fact that it is just a bunch of owls fighting. Ultimately this movie will probably only really satisfy a niche audience of people who love both owls and war equally.
Molly gives it sixteen and twenty one stars, sixteen and a hundred and thirteen moons out of two and a hundred and one out of one suns. She also thinks that the movie can be improved upon by just pretending that the characters in the movie are something other than owls if you happen to like something else more. I wish that I had thought of that before watching it.