Strollerderby : hulk

Letting Kids See Watchmen

Brett Singer — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 23:00:00 GMT

Lisa Belkin wonders if her 15-year old should see "Watchmen," this weekend's number one movie. His 18-year old brother saw it and pronounced it brilliant. I won't keep you in suspense (I know, you were on the edge of your seat), but Lisa eventually capitulated and let the younger son go. Spoiler: he liked it.

Having seen the film, I can say that it is definitely not for kids. The R rating should deter parents, but really it's the subject matter that they should be looking at. For the record, I enjoyed the film version of "Watchmen"; it's very faithful to the original comics (aka "graphic novel"), has some flaws, but overall is very much worth seeing. This column at The Onion AV Club by Tasha Robinson does a great job of breaking down the differences between the two, points out some missteps, and is good reading if you're interested.

For our purposes, the question is "how do I decide whether or not a movie is appropriate for my child?" Movie ratings help, but only up to a point. A commenter at the Times' website points out that "Dark Knight" was rated PG-13, which in my opinion is absurd. Great film, one of the best I've seen, and Heath Ledger's performance was incredible and deserving of an Oscar. Part of what makes his Joker so amazing is that he is really, truly disturbing, more so than the bone-popping-out-of-an-arm style of violence on display in "Watchmen." To me, and I believe to my kids, psychological violence is more troubling than physical violence. Not that I want them to see the extreme grossness that "Watchmen" has. But a movie's rating doesn't always tell the whole story.

What I do with superhero movies is see them first. I know. I make the ultimate sacrifice, go on opening weekend with a bunch of guys wearing Captain America t-shirts, and decide whether or not the flick is kid-friendly enough. "Iron Man" was, although the opening sequence is questionable. "Hulk" was borderline, but my then 7-year-old didn't want to see that one anyway. (Although he does love my blog post written from Hulk's point of view.) I thought "Spider-Man 3" would be too scary for him (Venom), but he was unfazed; actually, I think he was a little bored (the bizarre musical number).

What makes this part of my parenting job easier is that I actually want to see superhero movies. Belkin, not so much: when asked by a commenter why she didn't just see "Watchmen" first if she was so concerned, she replied: "You are right, I should have seen it if I felt so strongly about helping to give context to the message, but, frankly, I couldnt [sic] stand the thought of sitting through it." At two and a half hours, I can't really blame her. But if she had seen it, she would have found out that along with the cartoonishly graphic violence (not a lot, but what's there includes someone having their hands cut off with a power saw) is a very violent rape scene, a moment is that is much more graphic than the one in the original comic. Do I think most fifteen year olds have seen something like that in a movie already? Probably. Does that mean I want them to see that without me telling them what's wrong with that behavior? Probably not. For me, seeing a film is the best way to determine whether or not you want your child to see it, no matter what age they are. Fifteen may be too old to be concerned about what sort of entertainment your kids consume. But even if you don't censor it, it's probably a good idea to know what they watch.

Source: NY Times

Image: AVClub.com

Cookie Monster Cupcake

Angelina Jolie Could Always Use an Extra Baby

Should Chris Brown Be Getting Out the Kids' Vote?

Soldier Gives Birth At Army Barracks

5 reasons it's a good thing I had boys

Brett Singer — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:05:00 GMT

I was going to say, "I'm glad I have boys" but that didn't sound quite right. That is, I would love girl-children just as much as I love my guys. But there are a few ways that having boys has made my life – mine, specifically – a little bit easier.

1. No pink ponies: It doesn't seem like having a Y chromosome should automatically mean that one is interested in superheroes, videogames, and action figures inspired by superheroes and videogames. But experience says otherwise. While there are definitely girls who love trucks and boys who follow the Frasier and Niles Crane path – a love of opera, Broadway and snappy clothing – my guys are way into Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, Pokémon, Wii, Playstation 2, and so on. If I had to learn whatever there is to know about My Little Pony, I think my brain would crawl out of my ear.

2. Miley-free zone: Thus far Things 1 and 2 have shown zero interest in Billy Ray Cyrus' little ~~meal ticket~~ girl, which means I can continue to go through life knowing almost nothing about her. Maybe this will change when they get older, but hopefully by then Miley Ray Hannah Montana Stewart Cyrus will have either pulled a Britney Spears and had a meltdown, grown up and started singing jazz standards, or retired to spend her days sitting on a giant pile of cash gazing longingly at Nick Jonas. OK, I guess I sort of know something about her, but that's just from trying to keep up with pop culture. I have nothing against Miley or the Jonases, but not having to listen to their music or attend their concerts is something I will never, ever complain about.

3. No batting of eyelashes: My wife has pointed out many times that if we had had girls, odds are I would be putty in their hands. I wish I could say I disagree but I think she's probably right. Little girls are so cute, and seeing them cry is much more painful than seeing boys cry. I know that's stupid, sexist, and stupid (did I say that one already?). But I've seen, more than once, little girls who lead their dads around by the nose. It's probably best if we never find out whether or not I would join their ranks.

4. Less irrational over-protectiveness: Again, I am fully aware that this is unfair, stupid and sexist. But if I had girl-children, I would be very tempted not to let them leave the house until they were 30. I guess going to school would be OK, as long as they dressed like those Mormon sect people.

5. No High School Musical: When this monstrosity first started airing on the Disney Channel and the CD went to number one, I tried to watch it out of curiosity. I made it through about 15 minutes before I realized that it would probably be more fun to chew glass. The songs are lame, the characters are dull, the story is… Feh. Anyway, the boys seem immune to whatever charms that thing has, and for that, I am grateful.

image: Amazon.com

They say: Sarah Palin should step down

Sarah Silverman says: make granny vote for Obama

Palin should read Internet for Dummies

Stuff my 3 year old broke

More stuff my 3 year old broke

Dad arrested for leaving son at McDonald's

Red eye? Nope, eye cancer

Creepiest spam message ever: "we have hijacked your baby"

Lego Metallica

11 months old, 62 pounds

Babies R Us tells breastfeeding mother to get out

Volleyball hasn’t come a long way, baby

Shawn Johnson more mature than her coach

Shawn Johnson, Democrat? (UPDATE: Now with video)

The Dark Knight -- parents strongly cautioned (to go see it)

Brett Singer — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:00:00 GMT

Let's get one thing out of the way right now – you shouldn't bring your children. They might want to go, but unless they have a very high tolerance for a long movie (2 and half hours) and an abnormally high tolerance for what might be the most frightening performance ever (Heath Ledger's Joker), I'd get a sitter.

Now: this is some incredible movie. At first, I was a little bit apprehensive. Part of that feeling was the hype, which was so intense that it seemed impossible anything could live up to it. (Part of it was also that the movie didn't start until almost 1am because we had to sit through 7 commercials, none of which I remember at all – money well spent, advertisers. But I digress.) There are some slow spots, especially in the beginning, and I think the director, Christopher Nolan, could have cut 10 or 15 minutes of film and made it a tighter movie. But that's nitpicking, because there are several scenes, some just quick moments and some long, exciting action sequences, that will put your jaw on the floor.

The saddest thing about Heath Ledger's death is that his daughter will never know her father. But it's fair to say that if an actor had to go out with one performance, this is that performance. He's so good that I completely forgot I was watching an actor, which, for me, almost never happens. (It's worth pointing out that Gary Oldman as James Gordon, and Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, do the same thing in smaller and less flashy roles.) He's frightening, but not the way a horror movie villain is frightening. It's not shock value, although there is some of that (there's a bit with a pencil that might be the best 5-second description of a character in the history of cinema.) Without giving anything away, The Joker is referred to as a "terrorist" a couple of times, but unlike the terrorists in our world, this one has no cause that he fights for. He's just… mad. Not angry-mad, just flat out crazy. And Ledger captures that in every possible way. You could teach an acting class using this movie – what he does physically, vocally, emotionally; it's all stunning to watch.

The rest of it is, for the most part, equally good. I don't care about the love story, but it's fine I suppose and does serve the story. Aaron Eckhart is a solid actor and he does a good job as Gotham City District Attorney Harvey Dent. Christian Bale is by far the best Batman yet, although Ledger is so good that he really takes over the movie. Michael Caine is a good Alfred Pennyworth, Maggie Gyllenhaal is fine as token love interest Rachel Dawes; she's more than that, I guess, but it's not her movie. Gary Oldman is amazing; as in "Batman Begins," he somehow manages to completely capture the essence of a fictional comic book character that isn't a superhero, meaning that, as an actor, he has fewer details available to work with. I can't explain it but he IS Jim Gordon.

The nits to pick if you want to go there: some of the dialog is hokey (although the lines written for Ledger are brilliant.) There are a few slow spots. At times the action sequences are a tad frenetic, here and there. But it really doesn't matter. You'll read a lot about the surprising depth of this movie, and this is true to an extent. "The Dark Knight" is incredibly entertaining and does have some thoughtful moments amid the comic-book chaos, but there's no need to over think them. I would say just relax and enjoy it, but it's not a relaxing experience. Ledger's Joker is uncomfortable to watch, but in a good way. I don't want to give anything away, so you'll have to see it for yourself (but, as I said, get your tickets early; even the 12:30am showing was completely sold out.)

Now, despite the fact that there isn't much in the way of blood, this is not a film that you should take your children to see. Obviously, you know your offspring better than I, so if you think they can handle it, that's your call. And of course older kids will be fine. I hesitate to suggest an age-range, but I recommend seeing it yourself first if you're not sure. Worst-case scenario – you get to see it twice. Believe me, that's not a bad thing.

image: Reuters

Batman: get your tickets now

Set Your Alarm for a Romp Through LEGO Batman: The Video Game

Maggie Gyllenhaal on Letterman- He Wishes

Spying on the Neighbors: 7-17-08

Sexy Superhero Parents: The Top 10

Little Matilda Had Heath's Heart

Batman: get your tickets now

Brett Singer — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:42:00 GMT

So, being a guy who sees superhero movies, I wanted to see the new Batman movie. Today.

A friend wanted to come with me, so I couldn't pull my usual "go during the day when it's not busy" thing. So OK, let's see when its playing… What? Sold out? You gotta be kidding me.

Well, I'm not. If you're planning on seeing The Dark Knight this weekend, you'd better get your tickets in advance. This is unbelievably annoying. I tried at 2pm to get tickets to a 10:30pm showing, and it was already sold out. The reviews so far are over the top in their praise. Over at Rotten Tomatoes, a site that aggregates reviews from various sources, the rating is a whopping 94% positive (the only film with a higher rating is Wall-E.). If you go to the "top critics" section (print outlets and sites like salon.com), only a couple of the reviews are negative, which is extremely unusual for a comic book flick.

A lot of the interest in this film is because of Heath Ledger's death, but I've never seen anything like this. A movie that you can't get tickets to unless you go at midnight, which is what I'm doing? Come on. (And yes, I know I'm nuts.)

I'll let you know what I think of the film, and whether or not it's appropriate for children, later tonight. But for now, if you plan on going, order those tickets early, Bat-fans. Otherwise, you ain't getting in.

See you tonight -- different Bat-time, same Bat-channel...

image: Rotten Tomatoes

Set Your Alarm for a Romp Through LEGO Batman: The Video Game

Maggie Gyllenhaal on Letterman- He Wishes

Spying on the Neighbors: 7-17-08

Sexy Superhero Parents: The Top 10

Little Matilda Had Heath's Heart

Hulk want puny blogger to review Hulk movie

Brett Singer — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:00:00 GMT

Yesterday I received the following email:

To: Puny Blogger
From: Hulk
Subject: Hulk Movie

Hulk get right to point, Puny Blogger. Why Puny Blogger not review Hulk's movie? Puny Blogger wrote about Metal Man movie. Hulk hate Metal Man! Hulk smash!

Hulk know last movie had stupid plot and gamma-charged poodle. Hulk tell stupid producers about script problems at first table read, and Hulk not hire Ang Lee. (Hulk think Tiger/Dragon movie highly over-rated.) But Hulk feel good about latest big screen effort. New movie tell Hulk story in entertaining and emotionally satisfying way. Hulk see movie. Hulk happy with final cut.

Hulk angry that Puny Blogger not write about Hulk movie! Hulk just trying to get something going with career. Hulk father now, need to get ducks in row. Has Puny Blogger seen price of tuition? Hulk need start saving now. Hulk finally get big movie with big opening weekend gross, and Puny Blogger not care.

Write review of Hulk movie, Puny Blogger – or Hulk smash!

Cordially,

Hulk

Hulk, please accept our apologies for not reviewing your film sooner. I've just been busy with other projects, and of course, my family. As a new father, I'm sure you can understand. Please, do not smash me, my computer, or anything else for that matter. Here is my review of "The Incredible Hulk."

The last time Marvel brought ol' Greenskin to the big screen, it was a disaster. Too long, bad CGI effects, and a gamma irradiated poodle were only some of the problems. Bruce Banner becomes the Hulk because his father was mean to him, injecting him with some experimental serum, which is triggered by a blast of gamma radiation? Oookay. No disrespect to Ang Lee, but he was a bad choice.

For this latest effort, Marvel took over the producing reins and went back to basics. The story actually picks up where Lee's film leaves off; five years have passed, both in the film and in actual reality (Ang Lee's "Hulk" was released in 2003.) Ed Norton is a good Banner, although there are too many scenes that are clearly meant to "deepen" the character. When the Hulk shows up, it's great. The CGI isn't perfect, and it's not nearly as seamless as "Iron Man", which almost made you believe someone could build a shiny flying super-hero suit. But this new "Hulk" is 1000% better than the last one.

One interesting choice the director Louis Leterrier (the "Transporter" movies) and screenwriter Zak Penn (the last 2 "X-Men" flicks, as well as the upcoming "Captain America" and "Avengers" films) made was to go back to the much-beloved television series. They use a new version of the intro, the music shows up a couple of times, and some of the feeling of Banner wandering the globe looking for a cure is very much a part of this new "Hulk". (They did do away with the amazingly bad choice of renaming Hulk's alter ego "David Banner", although Bruce does use that name as an alias at one point.) I'm one of the millions of people who fondly recall the old "Hulk" series, which starred Bill Bixby and Lou Ferigno. (Lou has a cameo as a security guard and is still in body-builder shape.) That show, hokey and mopey though it was, had something that the first "Hulk" movie didn't, which was a sense of reality. Having a real person (Ferigno) play the Green Goliath made it feel more like it could actually happen. Part of what the new "Hulk" does better is to just have better CGI effects. But part of it is keeping things simple. Somehow going back to something that worked – the TV show – made this easier to pull off.

It's not a great movie. But it was so much better than I expected. Also, it sets up for future Marvel super-hero movies featuring multiple characters: Robert Downey Jr. shows up at the end to do his Tony Stark thing; this time you don't have to wait until after the credits. There's even a hint at a villain for a "Hulk" sequel. Part of the fun of watching our beloved funny books turned into movies is the recognition factor: "Hey! There's General Ross! Talking to Tony Stark! And they said something about a team!" Avengers! Yes!

"The Incredible Hulk" is still in theaters, so go check it out. It's a fun popcorn flick, and besides, Hulk needs the cash for Hulk Jr.'s college fund.

image: EOnline

Five Forgotten Fictional Fathers (Hulk mentioned here)

Stay out of my room or I'll pee on your tree (Hulk not mentioned here, but Hulk think story funny)

Here's to the laddies who lunch (Hulk not want have coffee with fellow dads)

Sexy Superhero Parents: The Top 10 (Why Hulk not mentioned? Hulk very attractive! Look at Hulk's abs!)

Hancock Tops U.S. Box Office for Holiday Weekend (Hulk knocked from top spot, but Hulk OK with that. Will Smith box office gold. Hulk relative newbie in movies)

An American Girl: Lisa Kudrow (Story mentions Hulk)

It's time again to play: Guess The Photo!

Brett Singer — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:00:00 GMT

This is:

a)   Me, after Burning Man
b)   The other Olsen sibling (you know, the one they keep locked in the basement)
c)   Rejected Sesame Street character Scary McNightmare
d)   The other Jonas brother
e)   The offspring of a superhero

It's e).

For those of you who always wondered, "What if the Hulk was sent to a strange planet and had a child with an alien woman who has some sort of power that connects her to the life-force of the planet itself?" Your question has been answered.

That's right, True Believers, this is Skaar: Son of Hulk. The new Hulk movie hits theaters today, which means a ton of Hulk-themed comic books will be released in an attempt to entice old and new fans to part with more of their nerdy money.

For the uninitiated and/or those who could not care any less, here's the scoop on Hulk's kid:

(Note: if for some reason you haven't read Planet Hulk / World War Hulk but are planning too, the next paragraph gives away the ending. So skip it if you don't want to be "spoiled.")

The Hulk is often a major league pain in the tuchas. All that, "Hulk is strongest one there is! Hulk smash!" can get real old after awhile. So The Illuminati – a group of self-appointed ultra-important superheroes (Iron Man, Namor, Doctor Strange, Professor Xavier, Reed Richards and Black Bolt) – decide to send Greenskin to an unpopulated planet where he can live out his days in peace and not hurt anyone. But they screw up and send him to a populated planet called Sakaar. While there, Hulk saves the people of Sakaar from an evil warlord and eventually becomes king. There is peace. There is happiness. There is even some Gamma-irradiated sex between the Hulk and his newfound ladyfriend, Caiera the Oldstrong. Then the ship that brought Hulk to Sakaar explodes, killing Caiera and his unborn child. OR SO HE THINKS. Hulk returns to Earth to wreak horrible Hulky vengeance on the "puny humans" that he thinks caused the explosion and the death of his happy alien family life.

This all happens in a series called Planet Hulk, which led to World War Hulk. It's good if you like that kind of thing.

HOWEVER! Hulk's son was not killed! In typical comic-book-nonsense fashion, Caiera has something called the Old Power, which connects her to the planet in a mystical way. Because of this, she is able to protect her child, who becomes a savage beast/teenager (same thing, right?). Or something along those lines.

Anyway, issue #1 of Skaar: Son of Hulk is available now in comic book shops. Is it any good? Eh. It's OK. Will I buy issue #2? Yeah. I will. Cuz I'm a sucker.

image: comiclist.com

Related posts:

Scientists Discover Missing Jonas Brother

Mary-Kate Olsen Getting Death Threats From Heath Fans

10 Childish (and Childless) Things We Wish We Could Do Now

Real Life Wonder Woman saves her twins

Last minute Father's Day gift idea

Marvel's greatest sh*t

Let's Play Guess The Photo

This Is What Happens When Geeks Mate

Marvel's greatest sh*t

Brett Singer — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 18:00:00 GMT

The latest attempt at a film version of "The Incredible Hulk" hits theaters on June 13. Hopes are not high among True Believers, but it can't be as bad as the Ang Lee stinker that came out in 2003, right? Marvel is riding high on the massive success of "Iron Man", and the fine ferrous fellow has a cameo in the new "Hulk", which should bring out a few more folks on opening weekend.

"Hulk" is the second film that Marvel has produced on their own. Before "Spider-Man" was a massive hit, Marvel licensed out their characters to seemingly anyone, often with very little success.

So in honor of this momentous occasion, here is a list of some of Marvel's failed movie offerings.

Roger Corman's Fantastic Four

This was supposed to be released in theaters, I even remember seeing the trailer. The word is that Roger, the king of schlocky flicks, spent most of his budget on a costume for The Thing, then had to piece together the rest of the film with almost no money. Somebody looked at his effort and said, "No way are we releasing this." It never saw the light of day but bootlegged versions can be found in video stores and online. Here's somebody who thinks this version is better than the 2005 film. YouTube has clips, 'natch; here is the trailer and the ending.

Fantastic Four - 1994 Roger Corman Original Movie Trailer!

1994 Fantastic Four ending

The Punisher

This one never made it to theaters either. Dolph Lundgren plays Frank Castle, the man whose family was killed by gangsters and then he devotes his life to killing every criminal he can find (hey, not all comics are for kids, you know). This was a bad idea from the start; the final product isn't any better. There was another Punisher film that was released, but it got pretty bad reviews.

Punisher 1989 Witty Comments

The Punisher (1989) trailer

Nick Fury

A TV movie starring David Hasselhoff. Was there ever a chance this would be watchable? It is worth noting that when Nick Fury appears in the new Iron Man movie (you gotta stay for the credits, dude) he's played by Samuel L. Jackson. So they, you know, decided to go in a different direction. I couldn't find video for this one but here's a photo.

(image: David Hasselhoff Online)

Captain America

In a lot of ways this one is the most tragic. Marvel has announced a new Cap film, which is good, but this one has to be seen to be believed. It almost looks like a home movie. Here's a video of Cap versus the Red Skull. The dubbing is in Italian but it should give you an idea of the low-quality filmmaking going on.

Capitan America vs. Red Skull

There are more stinkers out there; if you know of any good/bad ones that I missed, leave it in the comments.

New York Comic Con Photos - Part 2

5 Best Discoveries from the NY Comic Con, by Ayun Halliday

Gwyneth Paltrow Leaves Family For Robert Downey Jr.

This Is What Happens When Geeks Mate

Gwyneth Paltrow's Traumatic Experience

Iron Man Meets Lactacting Woman

Little Rivets in the Future for Iron Man Robert Downey Jr.?

Hulk Smash Puny Summer Movies!

Brett Singer — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:28:00 GMT

Jen's great post about upcoming summer movies for the kids left one off: The Incredible Hulk. Unfortunately, she may have been smart to do so, since there is a chance that the new Hulk might be as lousy as Ang Lee's 2003 version. (For another take on Lee's film, read this brilliant piece in The Onion, written from Hulk's point of view. "First Hulk movie flawed but underrated. Oscar-winner Jennifer Connelly give sublime performance as Hulk romantic interest Betty Ross. She pretty.")

I was going to add that maybe the Hulk movie is too scary for kids, but kids as young as 4 enjoyed Spiderman 3, which featured a fang-baring Venom (played by Topher Grace, which I guess minimized the scare factor).

Then there's the much beloved Bill Bixby/Lou Ferigno TV version. Despite the fact that the series rated high on the bummer-meter (Banner, Hulk's human side, ended most episodes hitch-hiking because his tendency to change into a green skinned monster with the IQ of a turnip made it difficult to form lasting relationships), it was hugely popular with kids, myself included. Granted, there were only three networks back then and we had fewer choices of what to watch, but pretty much anything featuring super powers was Must See TV for me (admittedly, it still is.)

The Times article points out that one of the problems fans have with the 2003 film was the presentation of the Hulk himself -- "Gumby" was one not-so-flattering comparison. No one seems to like the new version either. Both were CGI creations, whereas the TV show had Lou Ferigno decked out in green body paint. Here's some Hollywood logic for you: human version of Hulk, very popular. CGI version, much hated. New Hulk movie coming out. Let's do CGI!

Since I will probably be one of the crowd of nerdlings at the first showing of Hulk when it hits theaters, I'll report back on whether or not it (a) stinks and (b) if you can safely take the kids.