Jerry Howell

Synopsis: In this follow-up to the Disney smash hit, Simba and Nala now have a daughter, Kira, who is as mischievous as young Simba himself. When Kira goes exploring, she finds those Simba banished in the aftermath of Scar's murder of Simba's father, Mufasa. They seem to be bent on destroying Simba and his family at any cost...except for their son Kovu, who has fallen in love with Kira. Will his love for her win out?

The Good: Prior to watching this, it had been a while since I've done any regular Disney animation; I've done live-action from the House of Mouse, as well as Studio Ghibli, but not something like this, especially a direct-to-video sequel. While I doubt any movie will live up to the epic original, this one had great animation, good music, super voice work...all the hallmarks of Disney animated fare.

The Bad: The songs were lame; then again, the musical aspect of Disney animated movies is something I've never really liked. Also, this movie is a bit short compared to the original.

Content Concerns:
Sex: Lions romantically nuzzling and pawing at each other.
Nudity: None.
Language: Name-calling, at worst.
Violence: Animal fights throughout, including a rather intense final battle where at least one character dies; a flashback to the stampede scene from the first film.
Drugs: None.
Frightening/Intense Scenes: The evil lions are a bit scary; a dark mood in some scenes, particularly the climax.
Other: A bit of bathroom humor; communication with the dead.

Conclusion: Disney's direct-to-video sequels have drawn the ire of many a movie fan. Ever since The Return of Jafar, video stores have been flooded with many a film that never made its way to theaters, most of which have been scathingly reviewed by both amateur and professional critics everywhere. While I can't comment on most of the others, because I've never seen them, I have to say this one was surprisingly good for what it was. As long as you don't expect it to be as epic as the original Lion King, you might enjoy it; I know I did.

Synopsis: Lizzie is thrilled to be invited to a pool party thrown by Danny Kessler, her number one crush! Her mother is willing to let her go...until Jo discovers that it's on the same day as Lizzie's Nana's birthday. Worse yet, Lizzie's BFF Miranda is considering going without her, and "'Randa" has also been invited into the popular clique by Kate, Lizzie's former friend and sworn nemesis! Will Lizzie get to go to the pool party? Will Miranda learn the error of her ways?

The Good: This is one of the earliest Lizzie McGuire episodes; some sources say it's actually the pilot. Wherever it falls in the continuity, it's great to see where it all began. All the hallmarks of the show are here: a moral premise, someone learning a lesson, unconventional filming style, cartoon Lizzie's remarks...yeah, if you're a fan, you know.

The Bad: Despite being a Disney Channel show, this isn't quite as clean as you'd expect from the Mouse network. Remarks about teenage girls' chests may make some viewers uncomfortable, especially males. Also, the animation on the cartoon Lizzie is terrible.

Content Concerns:
Sex: Talk about teenage girls' chests.
Nudity: Teenage girls' midriffs.
Language: Name-calling.
Violence: None.
Drugs: None.
Frightening/Intense Scenes: A scene or two of emotional intensity.
Other: A scene of bodily function humor.

From a young age, I have been told by those of previous generations that older movies were nicer; that is, they didn't have the content concerns that ninety-five percent of the primetime shows or theatrically released films of the past two decades have had. According to those people, that's why they don't have MPAA ratings; back then, no such system was needed. Weil, I'm not as well-versed in the cinema of yesteryear as some people, but, I was disturbed by this film's content. Between the sexual content--including sexual relations between unmarried people and a scene implying nudity--the smoking and drinking, and even the profanity--yes, I know there were only three such words, but, I wasn't expecting any!--this is proof that cinema has a history of being morally offensive, even in the days before the ratings system.

I know many of you are likely thinking, "If you think this is bad..." and will point me to something in your collection that makes Breakfast at Tiffany's look like an episode of Sesame Street. Yes, I know that there's much worse entertainment out there, and that there has been for a long time...but, as a Christian, I'm commanded to "avoid every hint of evil," and I wasn't raised around such content like most millennials--even many who grew up in Christian homes--were. So, if even this was a shock to my system, I think it's obvious that I should avoid edgier fare like the plague...and that's just what I'll continue to do.

Years ago, I saw the Nancy Drew movie starring Emma Roberts. It was pretty much my first experience with the famed teenage sleuth; not only had I read absolutely zero of her books at the time, I was just as unfamiliar with the Hardy Boys. The main reason I was seeing that flick was because Emma Roberts was the star; as a longtime fan of young Hollywood talent, I was curious about her, especially since she and I share a birthday. Prior to that, about all of my experience with the franchise was Relient K's song about Nancy Drew. I remember very little about that Emma Roberts film, but I did enjoy it.

In recent years, especially after working at a library, I have become much more familiar with Miss Drew. I've read numerous novels about her; mostly from the original series and the Files one from the eighties, the latter of which I have a random garage sale in my area to thank for jumpstarting my collection of those. I've also seen some episodes of a nineties(?) series based on the franchise on the Tubi app. So, you might say that me and that famed teenage sleuth have become much better acquainted, which meant I was watching this celluloid version of her through much different eyes.

So, what did I think? Mostly, I enjoyed it: Nancy was (generally) her typical likable self; her friends were (pretty much) just as reliable; there was a mystery afoot, and Nancy used her sleuthing skills to solve it; and, some action and intensity--a hallmark of the books--were present. However, some unnecessary content found its way into the mix. Between misuses of God's name, the immodest outfits of some of the female characters, a suggestive remark here and there, and Nancy engaging in a revenge prank. this was not entirely what I'm used to from this franchise. Granted, it's still cleaner than the CW version, but, at one point, I felt like I was watching a trashy reality show instead. From what I hear, this film tanked at the box office, and it's not the first attempt at making a film series based on the long-running book series; maybe that's a sign that Nancy Drew should stay a literary character.

Who hasn't heard the song "Amazing Grace"? Even if you've never attended a church service, you've probably heard it in some form or another. I can remember a scene in According to Jim where that hymn was played on a harmonica during a funeral of sorts, and an episode of Home Improvement where Jill alluded to it. Most songs have a story behind them, and "Amazing Grace" has quite the history; after seeing this, you won't hear that hymn the same way ever again! Better yet, the production values and story were better than usual for a Christian film; the performances were all outstanding, especially the lovely Romola Garai as Barbara. However, what I didn't expect was for some problematic content to be thrown into the mix. While I knew there would be disturbing descriptions of slavery, as that was a deplorable practice, I was bothered by some of the female characters' low-cut outfits, as well as several utterances of profanity, including British crudities "b----y," "b------s," "arse," and right many uses of the h-word not in reference to the place. Despite its problems, it was still a great movie; however, with a bit more decorum, it could have been much better.

Okay, confession time: I watched the entire series of The Librarians before completing this film. Many years ago, I tried watching this and ended up losing interest about halfway through it. Despite the fact that it was out of order, I'm actually glad I watched it that way...because I don't think I would have even bothered with The Librarians if I had seen this mess first.

As a longtime reader, fantasy fan, and current library employee, you'd probably think this is right up my alley...but it isn't, because this telefilm is downright absurd, especially its finale. The nonsensical plot seems like something out of a video game than a book, and some of the scenes were just ridiculous: Bob Newhart beating up bad guys? Seriously? Also, the content issues were disappointing; while I expected violence and occasional profanity, I wasn't prepared for slight bloodshed, a WWE-style catfight, and especially a scene implying sex. The latter two, along with the villainess' outfit, seemed to be merely there to appeal to male viewers.

If you're completely unfamiliar with the Librarian franchise, start with the TV series, not this garbage. Now, I'm unsure whether or not to continue with the next two movies, despite the fact that they're currently sitting on my shelf.

Thanks to Disney's purchase of Lucasfilm, Star Wars: The Clone Wars finally gets the conclusion it deserves. I was glad to see the return of Ahsoka; she was missed in the previous season. All of the episodes were rather epic, but what really moved me was the four-episode conclusion, which ties into Revenge of the Sith and does so quite well. RotS was a big deal to me; not only did I see it on the big screen--which I've only done with three Star Wars movies, and the IMAX version I saw of Attack of the Clones was cut--which made it all the more moving, but, that was also around the time I discovered the Expanded Universe, which also had a big impact on me. So, those episodes brought back very fond memories.

Fans of Star Wars knew from the beginning that this show wouldn't have a happy ending; even if you've only seen the original trilogy, you know that Anakin becomes the evil Darth Vader, and that Obi-Wan and Yoda have to go into hiding. Instead of giving us sweet schmaltz, the makers decided to go with the prequels' vibe...and it worked very well here. It's a shame that the same storytelling talent couldn't have been applied to the films; barring a reboot, the movies have been forever stained by the epic fail that was The Last Jedi. Still, I have to give Disney credit in this case; they did it right. Maybe, someday, they'll realize how badly they flubbed with the flicks and give us the Thrawn trilogy on the big screen. One can only hope...

Despite being a household name, Robin Hood is one figure with whom I'm not all that familiar. Sure, I read the original Howard Pyle book...but that was all the way back when I was in elementary school. The only flicks I've seen before that relate to the legends are Prince of Thieves (rather violent, in my opinion), Men in Tights (hilarious, though I only saw the edited for TV version; I don't want to see the uncensored one), and the Wonderful World of Disney telefilm _Princess of Thieves (starring Keira Knightley as the super-capable daughter of Robin; need I say more?). All those I saw well over a decade ago, so, this was a bit of a reintroduction to the characters and story.

So, how was the movie? It definitely had a lot of old-school charm going for it. Robin and Marian were likable, not to mention a cute couple. The villains were appropriately despicable. Though there was a lot of action--Robin was a thief, after all--the violence was completely free of blood or gore, and the fight sequences were spot-on. True to classic film style, this flick was completely free from profanity, and it also respectfully portrays the Christian elements of the legend.

The only annoyance I had with the movie was that, a few times, they tell you what happened via onscreen text instead of actually showing it. While I understand having words like that at the start--Star Wars, anyone?--to have it happen more than once is a bit annoying; why not just show us the events? Still, that's a minor complaint. Maybe I should check out more old-school flicks like this.

The good news about this eighth season is the animation is vastly improved. In the earlier episodes, it was obvious that different studios did each one, because character designs would vary from scene to scene; not so here. Also, the action and heroism that was a hallmark of the heroes in a half-shell's television serial from the beginning is definitely present here.

The bad news is that the mood is much, much darker. Gone are the wisecracks, the breaking of the fourth wall, and the overall lighthearted feel; most of these episodes take place entirely at night. Based on the opening sequence, I would guess they were trying to evoke the feel of the first live-action TMNT film; that was a bad choice, in my opinion, because that version of the Turtles is the worst I've ever seen, especially from a content perspective. (Then again, I've never read the original comics, which were reportedly very, very dark.) While the Turtles don't use the profanity here that said flick contained, I still liked this show better when it was lighter and funnier; this season almost felt like a cartoon version of the Christopher Nolan Batman movies at times. I've seen about three and a half seasons of the 2003 cartoon, and, while they're overall edgier than the earlier episodes of this one, they still contain moments that will make you laugh or at least chuckle; not so much here. Plus, for most of the episodes, Shredder and Krang don't appear; the Turtles fight other mutants that are rather unconvincing villains. Even the theme song wasn't as good. I think this season is when this series "jumped the shark"; unfortunately, it happens to pretty much all long-running shows, so, it had to happen sometime.

Still, there are two more seasons left, albeit with only eight episodes each; we'll see if the makers were able to recapture the magic that made the first seven seasons such a blast.

Years ago, on Christmas Day 2013, my entire immediate family and I headed to the theater to see Frozen, the movie about which everyone was talking. It had been out for a while; a friend from work told me she and her kids saw it on Thanksgiving. While I had heard the song "Let It Go," and even had the Demi Lovato cover of it on my iPod, I was unfamiliar with the fairy tale The Snow Queen. (I know; what kind of avid reader am I?) The story was engaging, and the animation breathtaking, especially seeing it on the big screen. Since then, my mom and I have often referenced that movie, particularly Elsa's infamous show-stopping number; I would even think to myself about how various people I knew needed to "do an Elsa and let it go."

As big of a success as the first film was, it's no surprise that the House of Mouse churned out a sequel; thankfully, it wasn't another direct-to-video one. How does this one stack up to the original? Well, everything here looks incredible; at times, I felt like I was watching a Pixar flick instead. The story was exciting, and had plenty of twists and turns. Olaf was his usual hilarious self, and Anna and Elsa were likable and attractive heroines.

Unfortunately, the music here fell flat. As a kid, I was always a bigger fan of Disney's live-action productions--Flubber, George of the Jungle, Rocketman, etc.--than their animated fare; part of the reason why was because the cartoon characters tended to randomly break out into song, which I found annoying. I still feel that way to a degree, though I have learned to like some of the tunes from old-school Mouse movies. However, despite many people's annoyance with it, I found "Let It Go" to be rather iconic; I can see why plenty of other artists have covered it. This sequel's music is nowhere near as good. While the singing is beautiful, the tracks here lack the punch of the first film's. Of lesser note is occasional bathroom humor; was that really necessary?

In spite of its flaws, this is still a great movie; it's just not what it could have been. If they make a Frozen III, they need to bring back the style of music that the first film had. I enjoyed watching this over the past week; however, I could have enjoyed it more. Then again, that's a non-musical-fan talking; if you like your characters to break out in song, you might feel differently.

Many years ago, VeggieTales made its theatrical debut with Jonah, where the various fruits and vegetables retold the story of the prophet who went the other way when God told him what to do, only to be swallowed by a whale (or big fish, depending on who you ask). In the special features on the DVD release of Jonah, one of the producers or directors mentioned that they had considered doing a Noah's Ark movie, but decided not to, saying that "the fur would kill us." I have no experience with doing computer animation, but, from what I've heard, that's one of the hardest things to animate realistically. Even secular studios have trouble with that; remember how fake Scooby-Doo looked in his first two live-action flicks?

Since then, there have been plenty more Veggie episodes...but, this one takes a different tack. Not only is the animation style upgraded--for good or for ill--but mainstream stars Wayne Brady (Whose Line Is It Anyway?) and Tress MacNeille lend their voices to this project, alongside CCM singer Jaci Velasquez and the usual cast. As usual, Big Idea makes the Bible story kid-friendly, and there were plenty of cute moments alongside an inspiring story of faith.

Unfortunately, what ruins this episode is the new animation. While technically superior, it loses the charm of the original episodes. The first time I saw the cover for this DVD in a LifeWay catalog, Larry's appearance reminded me of that dumb purple dinosaur. Your kids may not care that much about the graphics, but, for longtime fans like me who grew up on the old-school releases, that's a deal-breaker. Online research shows that Big Idea eventually went back to the original character designs; while that's good, it may be hard for the franchise to recover from such a big shark-jumping moment.

I used to like Christian cinema.

When I was younger, I had a blast with VeggieTales, especially the Jonah movie. Though I never saw The Passion of the Christ due to the graphic violence, I enjoyed other Christian flicks such as Hangman's Curse (which, oddly enough, aired on ABC Family during their "13 Nights of Halloween" in 2004) to even Thr3e.

However, I've matured since then, and what used to enthrall me no longer does.

Case in point: I was an avid reader in elementary school, but fell out of love with literature in middle school thanks to being introduced to Pokémon/Nintendo, contemporary Christian music, and classic television. That trend continued when I became the Disney Channel guy in high school...until my junior year was nearly over, and I found a couple of Star Wars books at a local garage sale. Lucas' space opera was a big deal at the time; Revenge of the Sith had recently been released in theaters. I bought those novels on a whim, and ended up being enthralled by one of them, called I, Jedi. For years after that, I sang that book's praises...until earlier this year, when I read it and thought: What is this garbage? It was nowhere nearly as good as I remembered; that just goes to show how one's tastes can change over the years.

The same applies to other forms of media, including Christian cinema: What used to keep me glued to the screen no longer does; sometimes, finishing a movie over the course of a week--regardless of its genre--can be a chore...and that was the case here.

First off, the movie is rather edgy for a Christian flick, especially one rated "G". I was disappointed to hear a usage of the h-word; it was only one, but it was still unnecessary. Other unfortunate exclamations included two crude uses of the term "suck," one of which was by Joshua. Another letdown was the character of Maggie; most of her outfits were either low-cut or too tight.

The biggest problem, however, is with the plot: It's just inane. While Jesus is going to return to Earth, He isn't going to return the way this movie portrays; one reading of the Biblical book of Revelation shows that Christ will return as King, not a humble carpenter. While this film could be taken as a parable, there doesn't seem to be much of a lesson here; this is no Prodigal Son story or anything in that vein.

It's a shame; with A-list talent, including Oscar nominees/winners, a movie like this could have had serious benefit for the Christian faith. Instead, all it does is make people of the Way look bad.

The Good: Will Smith was amazing as the Genie; while he may be no Robin Williams, he brings his own flair to the role and does it very well. Naomi Scott also did very well as Princess Jasmine. The songs were fun, and I was glad to see a new tune included instead of all the same ones I practically know by heart. I enjoyed the special effects, and had a blast with the slightly modified version of the original story.

The Bad: Though not quite as egregious as in the original, some of the wardrobe choices of the female characters bothered me. Jafar was nowhere near as convincing this time around; he seemed like a "bad guy" from Sesame Street. Also, though the longtime entertainment fan in me enjoyed watching this, I have to question why this is necessary. Disney has become to movies what Nintendo used to be to video games: constantly re-releasing "new" versions of the same films we've seen time and time again. As classic and timeless as the original Aladdin was, why even remake it? It's been available on DVD for ages! It seems that the House of Mouse would do anything to make some moolah; the executives there must not know the words of 1 Timothy 6:10: "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." (NIV)

This flick was of interest to me for two reasons: One, my mom is a longtime fan of Broadway musicals, especially this one, so, I grew up hearing the songs and knowing the story. While I've never read the Victor Hugo novel--I know; what kind of reader am I?--I've become familiar with it thanks to its various interpretations. Two, Anne Hathaway is an old Hollywood "flame" of mine. In March of 2005, she replaced Hilary Duff as my number one favorite female celebrity after I saw Ella Enchanted thanks to a friend's recommendation. (Believe it or not, not only was that friend of the male gender, he was a former drill sergeant; no joke!) So, when I saw this recently at a garage sale, I knew I had to give it a whirl.

In short: I was blown away. The grand scope of the story; the performances, especially from Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, and Samantha Barks; the authentic sets; the musical numbers; pretty much everything about this flick wowed me. Better yet, it portrayed faith in God in a positive light; so much so, I almost felt like I was watching a Pure Flix production at times. An appearance by original Broadway cast member Colm Wilkinson was a plus. Not since the celluloid adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber's Phantom of the Opera have I been this impressed with such a film. Despite their popularity and my penchant for Disney Channel media, even the High School Musical and Camp Rock flicks didn't have such an effect on me.

However, I did have one quibble: There were certain moments that I found unnecessary. I understand that violence and sex were a big part of the original novel, and any faithful adaptation would have to be at least "PG-13"; still, there were a few brief scenes that could have been left out, and that would have embarrassed me if I'd had a friend--especially one from my church--watching it with me. So, discerning viewers may want to proceed with caution.

When Disney bought Marvel, people had a lot of questions: How would the universes of beloved characters such as Spider-Man, the X-Men, or the Avengers be affected? Some people had their doubts, and rightfully so; when the Mouse owned Saban, the Power Rangers seasons they produced are still to this day widely considered to be the worst, and many longtime space opera fans feel that The Last Jedi was a shark-jumping moment for Star Wars. Still, Disney has gotten their own franchises wrong, too; The Lizzie McGuire Movie may have been the first theatrically released film to be the series finale of a television show, but it betrayed the now-iconic sitcom on which it was based. So, they could have either hit a home run...or completely strike out.

Well, if this movie is any indication, then Mickey's ownership of Marvel is working very well. This film packed a punch unlike any animated movie I've seen in a while. Some scenes made me almost tear up, whereas others made me want to cheer. The animation was outstanding; seriously, it was on par with Pixar's creations. As usual, there was plenty of action and heroism, not to mention a cameo by Stan Lee, albeit one after the credits.

However, I do have to warn viewers that, though this movie was amazing, it is also very emotional. Early in the movie, the main character's brother is killed; later on, multiple characters are feared dead, including the protagonist's robotic companion. For those who can't handle seeing such tragedy because of events in their own lives, it might be best to avoid this.

I've always been a fan of strong female characters. My first celebrity crush was the original Pink Power Ranger, and most of the ones I've had since were best known for playing characters who were both powerful and feminine: Lizzie McGuire, Mindy McConnell, Mia Thermopolis, Maddie Fitzpatrick, etc. When I was a senior in high school, I wrote a novel (of sorts) about a super-heroine who, alongside her best friend/significant other, saved her entire town from the threat of a dastardly villain. Part of it was inspired by the first two Tobey Maguire Spider-Man flicks; however, I would never have even come up with such an idea if I hadn't seen my high school's production of Seven Brides for Seven Brothers...which featured a longtime female friend of mine as its lead. Looking back, I think the Disney sitcoms were a big influence, too.

So, to see a film center around a superhero of the fairer sex is a dream come true. True, we already got that when Gal Gadot wowed the world as Wonder Woman; still, Captain Marvel features a former Disney actress as its lead, so, in a way, I was more eager to see her flick than Diana Prince's. The fact that it takes place in the 1990s--complete with grunge music on the soundtrack and a scene in a Blockbuster Video location--had my curiosity piqued even more.

While good for what it was, it wasn't quite what I've come to expect from Marvel. Superhero movies usually have epic battles and lots of excitement; though there was some action towards the end, parts of this film were a bit dull. Brie Larson is attractive, but, her acting leaving something to be desired here. If this wasn't a Marvel flick and didn't feature a female superhero, I wonder if it would have gotten nearly as much acclaim as it has.

I'm a sucker for a story.

Seriously, anytime I hear, read, or see a story--in any form--I always want to know what happened next. I still remember years-old incidents where somehow--flipping channels, being at a friends' house, a technical problem, etc.--I saw only part of a movie or show; to this day, I wonder what happened before or after what I saw. True, some tales are not worth telling; if it's morally offensive, I don't want to hear any part of it. However, as long as it isn't sinful, pretty much any story can grab my attention.

So, despite the critical drubbing this movie got, I found it to be a captivating tale of redemption, with a charming historical setting. The performances were wonderful, and the production values were amazing. It seems to me that the critics were just too hard on this movie because it fell into the genre of Christian cinema. I would say that we need more films--and, for that matter, television shows--like this.

Then again, I'm such a sucker for a story that I stayed up past midnight to finish watching The Witches of Oz, which had the worst special effects I've ever seen, so, maybe I'm not a fair judge. To adapt an old song lyric, "Here I am now; entertain me!" That's what this movie did; you may feel differently.

(I do want to issue a content concern: This film has a surprising amount of violence; more than I would expect in a "PG". The initial shock I had while watching this is akin to what many people felt when Prince Caspian first came out. While there's no blood or gore, the intensity of the action made me feel like this should have been "PG-13" instead.)

First off, a little personal history: All the way back in 1995, I received a computer game as a Christmas gift called Putt-Putt Goes to the Moon. My mom didn't even know what it was; I still can hear her saying, "What is that? A golf game?" Despite its title, it had nothing to do with any sport; Putt-Putt was actually an anthropomorphic purple convertible that actually gets launched on a rocket to the Moon while visiting a fireworks factory. As the game progresses, that titular vehicle does everything from save an alien from moon goo to play the arcade game Bear Stormin' to meet up with an abandoned NASA Rover...and, eventually makes it back to terra firma. I quickly got addicted to that game, and soon got my hands on not only other Putt-Putt titles, but also others from the same developer, Humongous Entertainment. One of their games, Let's Explore the Airport, I awaited owning for well over a year, playing the demo to death the whole time. Words can't describe my excitement when my mom randomly decided to purchase it for me as an end-of-school reward.

Fast forward to 2004: I hadn't touched any Humongous Entertainment games in years, but I did fondly remember playing them on my first Mac, which was long gone. That November, I went with some friends from church to see The Incredibles in theaters, where the trailer for the first Cars flick was unveiled. As you can imagine, those Putt-Putt games were the first thing I thought of; it was almost like a 3-D version of a childhood favorite. I actually didn't see Cars until well after it came out on DVD, but I enjoyed it, particularly the vehicle-themed spoofs of other Pixar films during the end credits.

That was years ago; the Cars franchise is now a trilogy, and I'm just now seeing the second outing. What did I think? Honestly, I had a blast with it; the action and intensity was on point, and Mater's triumph over dire circumstances was very inspiring. I loved the voice actors, especially the female British spy, Holley Shiftwell. As usual, the animation was excellent. Despite what some people may think, I think this is another winner from the studio that pioneered computer animation; it was vastly superior to the last one I sat through: the dreadful, nerve-grating Incredibles 2. If you like family-friendly action/adventure flicks, this one is for you.

This is a review of both parts of "Broken Bow".

I was very late to the party with Star Trek; I hadn't even watched one of the films in its entirety until I borrowed Nemesis from the library, which was like starting a TV show by watching the series finale. It took me a while, but, I eventually got into the franchise, in both The Original Series and Next Generation form, not to mention the J. J. Abrams films. Still, like usual for me, I liked the television episodes better than the flicks. Since I'm already well into the second season of two other Star Trek series, I thought: Why not give another one a try? After all, my local library has the entire series of Enterprise on DVD.

So...what did I think? I would say that, just like TNG, this series started off a bit roughly. While I liked the plot and the action, the episode ran a bit too long, the theme music was terrible, and some of the computer animation was cheesy, especially for something made in the 2000s. There were some content concerns as well: While I expected occasional profanity, the language quotient was higher than I would have liked, and I definitely could have done without seeing T'Pol in a tight, midriff-baring outfit alongside a shirtless guy.

Still, a premiere episode doesn't define a series; if I'd stopped watching The Next Generation after the mess that was "Encounter at Farpoint," I'd be missing out on a lot! So, I'll keep watching; I won't say the only way to go from here is up, because it isn't...but, there's still plenty of room for improvement.

I've been a fan of Scooby-Doo for over two decades. Ever since a family member introduced me to it just as I was finishing fourth grade, I've enjoyed "those meddling kids" in various forms: television shows, movies (both animated and live-action), books, comics, and even a soundtrack on audio cassette. For the first two years or so after getting into it, I was known--for good or for ill--for being a big fan of the franchise.

When I heard that they were making a movie that told the origin story of Daphne and Velma, it sounded like something worth checking out; while Scooby may have been the most popular character, I liked the whole gang (well, except shark-jumper Scrappy.) The fact that the two leads were played by Sarah Gilman (I Didn't Do It) and Sarah Hyland (Geek Charming) only sweetened the deal.

However, I barely started it when I considered giving up on it; even though I didn't, it didn't get any better. If this was supposed to be the early days of two teenaged characters who first appeared in 1969, then, why do they have modern conveniences, not to mention technology that seems like something out of Spider-Man 2099? As much as I like Brian Stepanek (The Suite Life of Zack and Cody), he was just plain stupid here; I wonder how he felt playing such an inane role. Also, this movie betrays its "G" rating; while there's no profanity or sexual content, the scariness--which is more intense than anything in the old-school Where Are You! cartoons, partly due to the live-action setting--should have earned a "PG," and is likely to frighten youngsters, even ones who have seen the original show.

I do have to give the makers credit; they didn't decide to add drug references ("What's your name?" "Mary Jane." "Like, that is my favorite name!"), occultic plot devices, or profanity like they did in the first live-action flick featuring "those meddling kids". Still, just like in the case of the Mystery Incorporated cartoon, I think this is an insult to the legacy of Hanna and Barbera; they were likely turning in their graves at the release of this butchering of their most popular creation.

All the way back in 1996, I saw a Family Channel telefilm called Christmas Every Day, about a kid who has to relive December 25 until he learns the error of his ways. That was my first experience with a time warp film; the following February, Groundhog Day came on TV, and, when my mom and I watched it, she said, "This is like that Christmas Every Day movie!" Since then, the same plot device has been used in everything from the Nintendo 64 game The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask to Pure Flix's In the Blink of an Eye, the latter of which also used the Rapture as part of its storyline.

If you find movies like Groundhog Day annoying--and I've known some people who do--you won't enjoy this, but, I did. It feels like a Disney Channel production at times: teen romance, no profanity, and former Mouse network star Christy Carlson Romano (Even Stevens, Kim Possible, Cadet Kelly) both in a starring role and behind the camera as well, not to mention an appearance by one of the Lawrence brothers. Unless you absolutely adore Yuletide films, you probably won't want to buy this; I'm hopefully trading my copy in soon. Still, it was fun for what it was.

Me and this second Star Wars prequel have an interesting history. (I know; I say that a lot, don't I?) My first time seeing it was actually in an IMAX theater at a local museum; at the time, that place had the only supersize movie screen anywhere close by. What I didn't know until after it was over was that the IMAX version actually was shortened; as soon as me and my brother-in-law walked out of the theater, one guy said to his friend who saw it with him, "So...how much did they cut out?" Still, despite the hate this movie has gotten--it was widely considered to be the worst of the saga even before the prequel trilogy was finished--I enjoyed it; the action sequences were spot-on, and it's interesting to see the start of Anakin's journey towards the Dark Side. True, the romance was a bit overdone, but, this series isn't about lovey-dovey scenes anyway.

The one complaint I did have is that it feels a bit...well, oversexed. Between seeing Anakin shirtless and Padmé's various immodest outfits, it seems that the makers were trying to provide unnecessary eye candy for viewers of both genders. Also mildly disappointing was the single profanity; the only one in the entire prequel trilogy!

Me and this movie have an interesting history. When it came out in theaters, I had friends who were chomping at the bit to see it, but I didn't want to because I thought it was graphically violent due to some Star Wars video games having a "T" rating. (Ironically, when I became a big fan of the franchise, those guys didn't care for it anymore; they said they "grew out" of it.) I did actually see it around Easter of 2000 at a family members house, and I had fun with it. My mom bought me a shirt that had to do with the movie, but didn't want me to have one with Darth Maul on it, because she felt he looked too much like the devil. (Looking back, I can see how such an image would have been perceived by some of my friends and family, especially those who were elderly.) This film was my introduction to the Star Wars franchise; though I had played games and read books about it prior to seeing this, I didn't really understand them.

So, maybe I'm biased, but I enjoyed this movie. Even though the acting wasn't the best, the scope is appropriately epic, and it sets the stage for later events that are even more tumultuous, such as Anakin's turn to the Dark Side. Like a lot of media, I can see why some people don't care for this or the prequels in general...but I still liked it, even this time around. It may not be perfect, but it's light years ahead of the shark jump that was The Last Jedi.

As usual, I'll start with my history with this franchise: In 2000, when I was in sixth grade, our teacher had us all read The Hobbit as it was adapted into a play in our literature textbook. Another teacher that year had copies of the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy in her personal collection, so, I tried it...and just couldn't get into it. The next school year, a teacher recommended that I read the actual Hobbit novel, so, I attempted to...and had the same problem. When the movie came out in 2001, me and some family members went to see it on Christmas Day...and I was quickly bored. Not only was the flick overly long--probably the longest one I'd ever seen, and definitely the longest I'd watched in a theater--but, we arrived at the theater quite early, so having to sit still that long just drove me crazy. I was used to sitcoms and quick Super Smash Bros. Melee matches; a three hour movie couldn't hold my interest.

Despite that history, thanks to DVD technology, I discovered that watching long films in more than one sitting helped me appreciate them better. For example, I had trouble sitting through Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban at the cinema, but watching it and the other flicks in the series on DVD over the course of two or more days was much more fun. So, since I had the Lord of the Rings flicks on my DVD rack, I figured: Why not give them a whirl? For the past couple weeks or so, I've been watching Fellowship in fifteen-minute increments; this time, my reaction has been completely the opposite. The flick that once nearly bored me to death has proved amazing, inspiring, and beautiful.

I would say that I can't wait to watch the sequels...but, before I do that, I'm going to try out the extended edition, so I can see the entire story. Plus, I'm going to give the original novels a try as well; I had them years ago, and enjoyed the first two...but never finished the trilogy, even though I meant to do so for quite a while.

If you're a fantasy fan, and haven't seen this...you need to!

Let me start by discussing my history with this story, both in book and celluloid form: I was recommended the original novel in second grade, but couldn't get into it; I was too enthralled by computer games and television for it to interest me. In sixth grade, my homeroom teacher made it required reading; I was a bit hesitant to try it, but, when I did, I enjoyed it so much that I read the sequels later on in middle school, even though it wasn't required. To this day, that's the only book that was required reading for my entire class--at any point in school--that I actually liked. When the ABC telefilm came on, I started to watch it...but, then it got too late, and I had school the next morning, so, I taped the rest...and never watched it. Later on, I got the DVD from the library, but, it took multiple attempts to finish it. As an adult, I read/listened to the entire Time Quintet again, and it still held up, even though I wasn't too enthused by L'Engle's other works, especially A Ring of Endless Light, which I didn't care for even in DCOM form. When I heard that Wrinkle was getting the big screen treatment, I was curious what the House of Mouse would do with it; would they bring new life to it like they did the Muppets, or would they butcher it like they did Star Wars with The Last Jedi?

Unfortunately, I have to say that this falls into the latter category. To me, the best thing about this film was seeing Rowan Blanchard (Girl Meets World) in a role that was very different from Riley Matthews. If only she had gotten more screen time. The rest of the movie falls flat. Oprah Winfrey's performance was awful; while Reese Witherspoon and Mindy Kaling were attractive, they also were just awkward here. The flick also takes too much liberty with the novel; so much so, I'd hate to see Ms. L'Engle's reaction to this if she were still alive. As it is, she probably was turning in her grave at this movie's release. Not only was the story butchered, but the Christian elements were removed as well. Fans of the books who are also part of the Way will likely be disappointed by that. Yes, the special effects were good, but, you can get that pretty much anywhere these days.

In short: Go read--or listen to--the book and its sequels; don't even bother with this mess.