While I’m not going to debate if the people running The Pirate Bay are actually guilty of copyright infringement, I do want to look at something.  The content creators’ undying need to 1) limit and 2) prohibit the consumer’s use of their products.

Since the invention (and eventual popularity) of Napster, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) became blatantly aware of a practice that was going on at least two, maybe three years before Napster.  Granted movies weren’t being downloaded to the extent they are at this time, but music certainly was.  Napster just made it easy for the average person to download songs, hackers and computer nerds had been doing it for years by that point.

With this discovery that their content was being made available with such ease, the RIAA took action.  Their solution?  Sue the living daylights out of anyone they could.  They also added the step of prohibiting this practice by trying to make CDs harder to rip into the popular Mp3 format.  When a company (Apple) attempted to move forward with creating an online digital music store, the recording industry demanded that the tracks be heavily locked down and the number of devices and computers also be limited.  In a sense, they criminalized their customers.  They immediately assumed that customers would but the tracks purchased from digital retailers online for download by the internet large.  Problem is, most people who would legitimately buy their music online, were not looking to make it available on BitTorrent sites or other peer-to-peer networks.  in fact, those aren’t the people putting the music out there to download.  The people putting the music out on the internet to be downloaded, are the ones that are not buying the music in the first place.

It took almost 4 years for the RIAA and the record companies they represent to understand that DRM (Digital Rights Management) and criminalizing their customers was a bad idea (but they still sue the pants off of people if they can get a judge that agrees with them).  Now all the major music labels make their music available to purchase in a format that will work on most portable digital audio players and these tracks are not limited to a set number of devices or a specific piece of software.

The movie companies however, have not learned from the recording industry’s mistake.  In fact they are worse in some areas.  The iTunes movies are heavily limited in how a customer can use them.  They can only be used on a set number of computers/devices, and there is currently no way to burn them to a DVD to watch on a regular DVD player.  This is just not the iTunes movies either, the same goes for Netflix’s streaming “Watch it Now” program, and Amazon’s Video On Demand.  You can even include sites like CinemaNow or Vudu.  Even the "Digital Copy” that you can get when you buy new DVDs and Blu-Ray movies is a joke.  You are usually limited to a particular file and you can’t burn it to a DVD to view either (for instance if you bought a Blu-Ray with a Digital Copy, you can’ t burn the Digital Copy to a DVD to watch on a regular DVD player).

As you can see, it’s all about limiting the consumer’s use of the product.  The other thing is, these companies want us to become use to this form of limitation.  If they can get us to accept these limitations, then they can find ways to continually charge us money for something we already have.  They already do this with the Digital Copy idea they’ve got going right now.  It is very easy to rip a DVD into a format that will play on whatever device you have.  However, the programs that do this are eventually shut down by the MPAA because ripping a DVD (thus breaking the encryption on the DVD) is a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.  Reverse engineering technology designed to protect copyrighted material is an illegal and finable (and in some cases jailable) offense.  You’ve already bought the DVD, but you didn’t buy a digital copy, so creating your own is illegal even though you have already paid for the movie.

What the content makers want is to essentially sell you a license that allows you to play the content in whatever format you bought it in.  If you want to play that purchased content another way, you’ll need to buy it again, thus giving you the appropriate license.  To explain further, if you buy a DVD, you can play that movie in a DVD player.  That’s perfectly okay.  If you however want to play that same movie on your iPod, you’ll need to buy it from iTunes or use your digital copy (which you paid for when you bought the DVD/Digital Copy package).  To take the DVD and create your own digital copy of the movie is something the movie industry considers theft.

The thing about places like the Pirate Bay, Napster, and even Kazza is that they brought the the content to the downloadable masses.  They helped people rethink how they acquired and viewed content.  And another reason sites like those are popular is they do not limit the customer to a specific set of rules when it comes to how they can use the content.  For people that are a little more knowledgeable than the average consumer, this is a big selling point.  If they can’t figure out how to use the content the way they want, they’ll just download it.  It’s easier.  If the music and movie makers want to stop the constant downloading of their content, a good idea might be to stop limiting how that content is used.  Open it up.

Now, downloading copyrighted material online, that you didn’t pay for is just flat out wrong, there is no grey area here.  So one could argue that the people behind The Pirate Bay are guilty of copyright infringement and the propagation there of.  But with how BitTorrent works as peer-to-peer network, they have a pretty strong argument on their hands.  If you would like to read more about The Pirate Bay Trial, check out this link to Torrent Freak.  It makes for some interesting reading.

Star Wars: Clone Wars

Just got out from seeing the latest Star Wars feature, Clone Wars.  Before we dive in let me inform you that I have read all 9 volumes of Dark Horse’s Clone Wars graphic novels multiple times.  I was excited to hear that a Clone Wars movie and TV show were being made because i wanted to see how much of the comic books would make into both of these.

On to the review.  For starters, this movie is geared towards a younger audience.  So keep that in mind as you watch the film and listen to the bad jokes, mediocore dialogue, and somewhat thin plot.  However, that does not mean that this movie is not enjoyable and I believe that it sets up the television show quite well.  The movie has its moments and will make you want to see where they take the television series.

What I enjoyed aobout the film is that it takes place in a time of the Star Wars universe that was not overly explored in the movies (or even in the Cartoon Network mini-series).  Lots of things were hinted at, alluded to, and summized but nothing was really overly discussed.  In the comics however, that’s not the case.  Where the film (and more than likely the TV show) differs from the comics that dived into this era of the universe, is that it focuses a lot on the characters of Anikan and Obi-Wan.  The comic did involve thiese characters but it also put a lot of focus on several other members of the Jedi order that we only see glimpses of here in the movie.  However, a television show can last a while and I’m sure Lucas has a definitive end in mind for the television show so we might get to see some of these other characters.

Another interesting thing about the movie is that we get to see more of Ventress, Count Dooku’s sith apprentice.  We saw a little bit of her in the first Cartoon Network mini-series, but she was more prominant in the comics.  I’m interested to see where they take her and what elements come out in the television show.

Some things that people are not going to like about this movie?  The dialogue.  It’s about as bad as the prequels, but keep in mind that this was definitely geared more towards children.  Not all the dialouge is horrible, and a lot of the better pieces are what one could consider definitively “star wars” in nature.  Another thing is that the beginning of the movie does not have the typical Star Wars opening scroll that tells the viewer where we are coming in at in the larger story.  This is instead replaced with a narration that accomplishes the same goal.  I personally didn’t take too much issue with it but I know others who might.

Overall, the movie is somewhere in the middle.  It’s not the best Star Wars movie ever, but it’s definitely not the worst.  And considering that it is a prelude to a television show that’s coming out this fall, I think it does do a nice job of preparing the way for that.  True die hards will want to see it in theaters, but most folks will probably be able to wait for the DVD to come out.

This is a horrible idea and further proves that most of the people calling for the removal of Robin 1) do not understand the Batman mythos and 2) have probably only experienced the Chris O’Donnell Robin (which is not Robin).  Allow me to explain.

Robin serves a major role in the Batman universe in all 4 incarnations.  For those that are not aware there have 4 Robins to date: Dick Grayson (now Nightwing), Jason Todd (Killed by Joker but recently brought back due to a split in universes during Infinite Crisis), Tim Drake (the current Robin), and Stephanie Brown (aka the Spoiler and Robin only for a short time).  In every instance, Robin is the more optimistic (usually) character to Batman’s dark pestimistic view on the world.  This adds a touch of humanity to Batman, having someone around that constantly looks on the brighter side of things, even in the face of danger.  But each Robin serves their own distinct purpose as well.

Dick Grayson

Dick Grayson, whose parents were tragically killed by criminals trying to harrass the circus owner of the circus he and his parents traveled with, was brought in under Batman’s wing to give him a outlet for his anger and giving young Grayson someone who could mentor to him and teach him a path that didn’t end in disaster.  Something Batman did not have.  Dick was the first to wear the Robin mantle (and if you’ve read Robin Year One then you know he also help come up with the name).  Dick is also the most likely successor to the mantle of the Batman as he as been trained from a young age to be a detective and crime fighter.  The main point here is that Grayson’s path was set by Batman, it also gave Batman a partner in his lone war on crime.

Jason Todd

Jason Todd was the exact opposite of Dick Grayson.  A criminal who Batman found stealing tires off the Batmobile, Batman figured he could give the boy a more constructive hobby.  The problem with Jason Todd (and the reason he was killed) is he wasn’t Dick.  People had grown to like Dick Grayson and had watched the boy grow up.  The idea of a new Robin didn’t sell well (at least the first time).  Jason Todd’s role as Robin is now that he is Batman’s greatest failure.  An innocent who was killed in the line of duty by Batman’s greatest foe.  It is this mistake that causes Batman to have reservations about taking another Robin.  But when a third Robin does come around, Batman goes to great lengths to ensure his safety.  Without Jason Todds death, Batman has no large failure.

Tim Drake

Tim Drake, the third Robin, is the only Robin to have his own monthly series.  And under the guide of writer Chuck Dixon, is really shown to have a place in both the Batman mythos and the DC Universe as a whole.  Where Jason Todd is Batman’s biggest failure, Tim Drake is his brightest student.  Batman is on record as saying that Tim is smarter than him and will more than likely take over some day.  The main reason people like this Robin is because he has a tie to Dick Grayson (he has a picture of himself sitting on Dick’s lap while attending Haily Circus) and was there when Dick’s parents died.  Also Dick Grayson cares for Tim like a brother (and since Bruce has officially adopted Tim, they are brothers).  Tim is important because he is the one who made Batman understand that he needs a Robin.  Batman needs a Robin to make him really think through all the angles and not be so gung-ho in battle (read A Lonely Place of Dying).

Stephanie Brown

Stephanie Brown served as Robin when Tim Drake temporarily quit at the request of his father.  Stephanie was also fired as Robin for not obeying orders.  Stephanie’s purpose as Robin is two-fold.  First, she is proof that not everyone that wants to be Robin or included in the Bat-Club can cut it.  Secondly, she is a cautionary tale about understanding just how deep Batman’s secrets go.  He never let her in on all the secerets and because of this, she inadvertantly started a gang war that seemingly ended with her dying (it has since been revealed that she is not dead, and has returned to Gotham as the Spoiler again).  She is also proof that Batman wants soilders, people who are willing to follow orders without too many questions.  Most of the time, it is his way or the highway.

How to Do Robin Right

Now, I can understand some people’s fears on bring Robin into the Nolan Batman movies.  The last time Robin was brought into the movies, it was pretty horrible.  He wasn’t a kid, and he had too many anger issues, and they gave him Tim Drake’s suit.  So Robin in Batman Forever had Dick Grayson’s origin, Jason Todd’s anger, and Tim Drake’s outfit.  Too much at one maybe?

So how should someone write Robin into the Nolan Batman movies?  Since this is probably never going to happen, here is how I would do it.

• Make sure he is a kid! This is the big one folks, for Robin to work you have to make him a teenager (like 12-14 max).  It also adds to the reason that Robin always told jokes when fighting, because it was the only way (as a kid) he knew to mask his fear.
• Keep the circus origin, it is important that Robin be athletic and an acrobat (gives him a leg up when the training starts)
• You’d need a training montage.
• Make his costume more realistic (like Batman’s), it can be darker but it still needs color (the color was meant to be a distraction so Batman could act quickly)
• Make sure Batman has the father-figure thing but at the same time ensure that it is something he learns over the course of a couple of films.  Bruce and Dick still have issues relating with each other to this day.
• Get someone like Chuck Dixon to help write and help folks understand Robin.  Chuck Dixon is the best writer of both Tim Drake’s Robin and Dick Grayson’s Nightwing.  He truly understands both characters.

The solution is not full proof.  And Robin should not show up for at least 2-3 more movies.  And if you really want to follow continuity, you’ll need to bring Batgirl around first anyway.  The idea here is that Robin is important to the overall character development of Batman.  It shows he’s human and is not just a over-obcessed nutball, he has a mission and he needs people to carry on that mission after he dies.  He needs family, something that he never truely had.  This is something that a lot of people don’t fully understand for some reason.

Recommended Reading:

• Dark Victory
• Robin Year One
• Nightwing Year One
• Lonely Place of Dying

1. The download size of high definition content is not attractive to the average consumer yet.  A full 1080p (aka full HD) quality movie is around 5GB gigabytes (minimum) depending on length and audio of the motion picture.  High definition quality is essential 2-3 times the quality of regular DVD quality videos, which are downloadable from iTunes, with an average size of 2 gigabytes (keeping in mind that 1.39GB is around 1.65GB of actual disk usage) and if you times that by 2, you will be looking at 4GB download sizes.  With a good broadband connection you’re looking at probably half a day to download.  That’s quite a bit of time when I can goto the store buy the disc and play it in a matter of an hour.  I then also have a physical copy to store for later viewing without taking up space on a hard drive.  Not to mention that if other cable companies follow Time Warner’s lead in broadband bandwidth caps (limits on the amount of data that can be downloaded monthly), downloading large movie files is not going to be attractive.
2. The average consumer does not know how watch a digitally downloaded movie on their televisions.  This is a point that most geeks miss, mainly because we know the how, why, and intricacies of making digital movies play on a television.  The average person does not know how to do this.  I think with the new version of Apple TV, we could see this change a little, but only in small percentages for a couple of years at least.  Once companies have released boxes that can integrate into a home theater setup, then digital movie downloads might have a chance at ending Blu-Ray’s existence.  The problem is, there are not many non-geek devices that can download, let alone play digitally downloaded movies.  By "non-geek" I mean that the average person (your grandmother, for example) can use the device without having to call you with thirty questions.

These are just two of the main reasons that Blu-Ray has nothing to fear from digital downloads, at least for the next 5 years (my prediction).  Other issues exist, for sure, but these are probably two of the biggest hurdles.  Believe me, I think that the new version of Apple TV is a huge step in the right direction in overcoming these issues, at least in a small way.  But Apple TV is still not perfect.  There are also people out there (like me) who enjoy owning a physical copy of the movie or music disc.  Digital copies are great, but if I lose the files, I would like to be able to get the digital file back, and having a physical disc helps with that.

It seems Christians (whom I would consider “my people”) are still tackling the Harry Potter issue with every movie and book release.  Fortunately they have run out of books to complain about but we still have two more movies to get through and we can expect that Christians are going to continue to complain about them.

I want to begin by making note, that I somewhat understand these Christian’s arguments.  The Bible is very explicit about magic, witchcraft, and things of that nature.  The Bible explains that these things are very real and evil.  Okay, so they are real and we as Christians should avoid them.  Fair enough.  Does this mean that Christians should avoid good juvenile fiction on the subject?  Well I guess that would depend on how far you want to take the Bible’s view point.

I am completely okay with a Christian parent telling their children they can not read Harry Potter due to the wizards and witches in the story.  What I have a problem with is the typical Christian hypocrisies that comes with it.  If you will not allow your children to read or watch Harry Potter because its a world of magic that contains wizards and witches, then why is it okay for those children to read the Chronicles of Narnia series or even Lord of the Rings.  Certainly you would not let them watch the movies either right?  Wrong.  Most Christian families who speak ill about Harry Potter are letting their children read books by Christian authors that contain the same elements they acknowledge as evil in Harry Potter.  Chances are, they are also letting their kids (and themselves) watch movies based on these writings.

The thing is, most Christian parents do not teach their children about the concept evil in the correct way.  You teach your children that in real life magic is to be avoided and that it is not all great fun like the Harry Potter books show.  These parents do not demonstrate to their children the difference between fiction and reality.  It is a very necessary distinction that needs to be made.  Children need to be taught that fictional stories involving fictional characters are just that and have no bearing on real world events.

Another issue is that most Christian parents throwing a fit over the popularity of Harry Potter  have not bothered to read the books themselves.  The books are juvenile mystery stories where good often triumphs over evil.  The books teach the value of friendship and even respecting your elders overall.  Yes, around the end of the fourth book, the series becomes a little darker, but that is when the big evil returns completely.  They are light hearted fun, nothing more.  Also, parents in an uproar miss the fact that children are standing in line at bookstores at midnight waiting for a book to be released.  They were not waiting on the newest video game or movie, but rather a book that had actual words that needed to be read.  This is a huge deal.  Children actually wanting to read instead of play video games, watch TV, or go to a movie.

I think Christians that have an issue with Harry Potter need to lighten up in a big way.  They also need to really look at the games they probably let their kids play.  They might also want to look more closely at some of the Christian authors writing stories with similar characters before passing judgment on something as trivial as Harry Potter.  It is not like the books of Harry Potter are teaching children real magic spells that they can perform on their friends.

Consider the fact that because of legislature like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), it is illegal for you to circumvent any technology put in place to stop you from watching a DVD or listening to a CD in a manner that the movie and recording industry have deemed, wrong. The problem is that only about maybe 15% of the population needs to listen to music or watch a DVD in a non-standard way so laws like the DMCA go unnoticed expect by the computer elite. Sure you might find a normal person or two that have heard of the DMCA, but chances are they do not know much about it and it is something that their geeky friend(s) told them about.

The recording industry is the worst of the content providers. The recording industry and their special interest group, the RIAA, have made suing their customers a legitimate business. Though as more and more people begin to actually challenge this incredibly odd business practice, the recording industry is finally going to need to face the music (pun intended) and start giving into customer demands. The reason that the recording industry made the deals they had originally made with with Apple to sell their music in the iTunes store, was because they did not truly believe that no one would download music legally. Well, billions of songs later, the record companies want to raise the per song pricing of the songs on iTunes and they want a bigger share of the profits. The record companies proved they were nothing more than money hungry corporations who had very little idea about what their customers actually wanted.

The movie and television industries (who are kind of one in the same), took a different approach. Except for a very small handful of cases, these two content providers decided to prosecute the providers of downloadable movies, in other words the person who actually leaked the film, rather than sue the customers caught downloading. The television networks jumped at the chance to provide content in a digital downloadable format, some having to be paid for while others were free with minimal advertising. The ABC network (which is owned by Disney) released four of its top shows to the iTunes store in Apple’s first round of video releases. When viewership of those four shows spiked in the ratings, other networks almost trampled each other to get in door. Themovie industry was not far behind, you could download movies from Lions Gate’s own website and companies like CinemaNow paved the road for something better.

Apple, if nothing else, has proven that people are willing to download content and pay for it. There is a pretty standard rule in technology and it is the first person to make it easy for everyone to do, is the person who is going to make the most money off of it (or be the most popular). And this is why Apple with their iTunes store has been so successful in the digital download arena. They have provided an easy way for even the most computer illiterate to download digital content. As a result of this, they are extremely well known in this area now. Apple is practically synonymous with digital downloads.

Why would one set of content makers jump into new waters so quickly while another trudges along attempting to get legislation passed to hinder the customer’s digital rights? I firmly believe that the movie and television industries learned from the recording industries mistakes. Yes, they still make some of the same ones, but overall the movie industry has been more open to different and often better kinds of distribution. I think that the recording industry wants to hang on to the practice of telling the public what they should like by means of payola, MTV, and mass marketing. The record companies just can not accept the fact a person will listen to Dashboard Confessional and then two tracks later listen to Metallica or Prodigy. This is a foreign concept to the executives in the recording industry. Also, the recording industry has over the last two decades shifted their focus from quality artists who write real quality songs to the mass produced, easily marketable singles. There are artists from the 70′s and 80′s that released entire albums that were good not albums with 3 good songs and 7 fillers. This kind of consistency is almost unheard of today. If you do not have a song that can get millions of spins, the record companies want nothing to do with you. This is one of the reason’s iTunes was so popular. No longer were customers stuck buying a 12 song CD for thirteen dollars, they could simply buy the track they wanted for $0.99 ad skip the rest of the album. With the focus on singles rather thanentire albums of good songs and people only buying a single song instead of an entire album, the record industry would like to blame piracy for their ills, when really, it is their own current business strategies that is causing their bottom line hits.

The television industry has kind of had a resurgence lately. With shows like: Lost, Heros, Battlestar Galactica, and My Name is Earl; the people in television have learned that quality wins out every time. If you produce quality shows, people are going to flock to watch it. They have learned that having one good show after another spread out across 12-22 episodes will pull more viewers than a show that is hit and miss. This is one of the distinct differences between the recording industry and the other content makers. One refuses to change with the times while others work to find new ways to make the new technology benefit their bottom lines.

When you get right down to it, everything comes down to money. How many albums can you sell? How many tickets and DVDs can you sell? Or even, how many viewers can we get so can charge our advertisers more. I have no problem with the bottom line being what these content makers care about. It is in fact what keeps them in business. My concern is when they do not take well to change. If you as a business entity can not grow and change with the times and your customers’ wants then you will die out and bereplaced with some that will grow and change as well as meet the needs of the customers.

[Technorati Tag: Commentary]
[Technorati Tag: DMCA]
[Technorati Tag: Music]
[Technorati Tag: Movies]
[Technorati Tag: TV]

Several Fox shows are currently available on iTunes including last season’s runaway hit Prision Break. Fox Studios has a massive movie library under its belt including the Star Wars franchise as well as the X-Men trilogy. It is no doubt that if a deal is made then the movie selection on iTunes will grow to a good size soon after the deal goes public. Hopefully other studios will follow suit and contact Apple about getting their films on iTunes.

[Technorati Tag: Techology]
[Technorati Tag: Movies]
[Technorati Tag: Apple]
[Technorati Tag: iTunes]

When Apple made the announcement of TV shows, it did not take long for other TV networks to begin talks with Apple and within three weeks to a month there were shows from other networks available for purchase through the iTunes Store. But, here we are, at three weeks since the movie announcement and not so much as a single rumor of another studio wanting to get their films into the iTunes Store.

Are other studios refusing this option because they know it will lock them into a pricing scheme they might not like 6 to 12 months down the line? Are they preparing their own download services or are they in talks with other service providers (Amazon’s Unbox or CinemaNow). What is keeping other companies out of the iTunes Store? It could be Apple themselves, but I think they have proven through the TV show side of the store that they are all about offering the most content.

Where are the movies from the other studios?

[Technorati Tag: Movies]
[Technorati Tag: Apple]
[Technorati Tag: iTunes]

Articla and copy of the press release can be found here.

[Technorati Tag: Movies]
[Technorati Tag: Comic Books]
[Technorati Tag: Batman]

(Video provided courtesy of YouTube.com)

[Technorati Tag: Movies]
[Technorati Tag: Comics]
[Technorati Tag: TMNT]

The above trailer is for MATURE audiences only.

[Technorati Tag: Movies]
[Technorati Tag: Clerks 2]
[Technorati Tag: Kevin Smith]

Being recently married (married in April) means I also recently honeymooned. And on my honeymoon I had one round trip plan ride. On they way to our honeymoon destination I watched Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire on the airplane via the airplanes in flight movie system. Though having already seen this movie I still opted to watch it rather than drain the batteries on both my iPod and PSP thinking they might come in handly later in the day as there was at least one car ride to reach our boat (we went on a cruise). However, on the plane ride home I opted to watch videos on my iPod. Now, I had about a three hour plan ride to get home. While my new wife slept I watched episodes of Entourage and Batman Beyond on my iPod. While I made it all the way home with some battery to spare, I wasn’t playing these videos consistently for the entire plan ride. This means the hard drive was not having to consistently spin to access the data which in turn means that the battery lasted a little longer. Watching an hour and half to three hour movie on your iPod means that your iPod needs to spin the drive every so often to load parts of the video into it’s memory cache and the more the hard drive needs to spin the more battery your iPod is going to use up in the long run. There are already reports of people getting poor battery life out of their iPods when watching full length movies they themselves have encoded so Apple knows that this is going to drain peoples batteries quite fast.

Now, the article does not explicitly say that the movie rentals will work on the iPod and instead focuses more of its discussion on the technology and reasoning behind going with rentals rather than downloads so my whole complaint could be completely nulled upon the announcement of the movie rentals, assuming of course an announcement actually happens. ThinkSecret has been known to be wrong from time to time.

[Technorati Tag: Technology]
[Technorati Tag: Apple]
[Technorati Tag: iTunes]
[Technorati Tag: iPod]
[Technorati Tag: Movies]

As the follow up to The Incredibles, Cars holds its own.  Clocking in at just under two hours in length, this is probably the longest childrens movie yet.  Cloe did manage to get a little restless towards the end but when the big race started her eyes were glued to the screen.  Though, in my opinion, this movie could have been about 20 minutes shorter than it was.  Certain scenes could have been cut shorter and still had been just as effective in the plot.  For example, one scene the main character goes for a “drive” with his love interest for a solid 15 minutes.  This little drive could have been cut to 7-8 minutes and been just as good.

Though overall as a kid movie the plot is relativly simple.  The hotshot main character learns that he, in the end, can’t do everything on his own and needs friends.  A simple message that children of all ages can get easily.  And while the plot may be simple the jokes that the adults are going to get are just as funny as ever.  My personal favorite little funny moment was the first time I heard McQueen’s agent (voiced by Jeremy Piven who plays Ari Gold on HBO’s Entourage), being an Entourage fan that made me smile.  As with any Pixar movie, you will want to check out the end credits, the jokes here are great.

The final word is, this movie is good, but in my opinion, does not come close to its predecessor, The Incredibles.

The thing that struck me most about this movie was that they did not try to follow any present story from the comics or tv shows. Instead they came up with a slightly modern Superman story which made the movie a complete original. While it does focus on a post-Superman I timeline it was still great. And you do not have to see Superman I to understand what’s going on in this picture, which is a good thing since I can confess to having seen Superman I only one time in it’s entirety and I don’t remember it very well.

For those that haven’t seen the movie yet, I’ll but a break in now so as to not give anything away.

Spoiler’s after the jump.

Some interesting things have taken place since Superman has left Earth in search of the remains of Krypton. Lois is engaged to her boss’s nephew, she has a child, and the world as whole has moved on.

When Clark finds out about Lois you can tell he’s heartbroken. This is the love of his life, and this does not change at all. Lois, while practically married, is still in love (at least to a certain degree) with Superman. However, I was impressed that when Superman and Lois finally meet for the first time to talk, she resists the urge to kiss him due to her commitment to her fiance’ Richard. This is a wonderful scene because she remains faithful instead of giving in and going through the meladrama that some writers would do.

The twist of the movie was probably my biggest dissappointment. Lois’ son turns out to be Superman’s son. But they never really explain how this happened. They never really say if Lois actually slept with Superman or Clark, though it makes more sense that she slept with Clark. Now while my theory might make more sense, she never figures out that Clark and Superman are one and the same, and so with everything combined you’re left to wonder what exactly happened.

Overall Superman Returns is the best movie of the summer so far. It far exceeds X-Men 3 in writing, story, and film. The movie also gives Superman a fresh start on the big screen. I can not wait to see where they take it from here.

The movie starts off baisc enough getting straight into the plot, even making fun of itself from the very beginning as well as throughout the rest of the film. The supporting cast really shines in this movie. If there was ever any doubt about The Rock’s act ability, all said doubt is removed after watching this movie. The Rock’s character, the homosexual bodyguard to Vince Vaughn’s mock-black music manager character, who has aspirations of being an actor is a character that’s hard to forget. And he plays it so well it’s almost frightening. Vince Vaughn plays his wanna-be-black character with surprising percision. He manages to be realistic without being over the top or annoying.

Everything about this movie is just about perfect, except that certain parts seem to drag out longer than they need to and the Chili character seems to still have a lot of his wise-guy act even though he’s been out of that enviroment for what’s probably years. But the movie is entertaining and will leave you feeling your two hours was well spent.

(Click on cover to purchase)

I’ll be there, will you?