Quick Family Update

Jonathan is continuing his transition into childhood (from babyhood) and is forever amazing me by all the new things he's daily learning and showing me. Yesterday, he was able to point out his feet and rub his tummy for the first time. :) Maybe these seem like tiny things, but they are still amazing to me! Unfortunately, this increase in learning is also associated with an increase in curiosity (i.e. extreme messes). It seems that any time I try to do a project (like the dishes, making the bed, or any sort of cleaning at all), he makes such a mess around me that I have twice as much to do. Ah, the joys of children. :) Maybe he's just trying to teach me endurance--or just making sure that I never get bored with nothing to do! :) I'm doing well. I read a lot (Clifford, Barney, etc.) and am able to workout (Jonathan runs fast!). It's not easy, but I love being a mother. :) Oh, and I've learned I can make really intriguing dinners. I tried a new recipe yesterday--one that includes rosemary. Well, I've never really cooked with herbs before, so I just put in the required amount. Little did I know that I was supposed to CRUSH the rosemary first. Bryan and I ended up eating full rosemary leaves (which are actually like pine needles--not the most tasty consistency). We both ate all we could stand, then Bryan gave in and had some Mac and Cheese. :) Oh, well. I'll figure it out in time, I guess! :) Bryan's being kept quite busy right now. In order to graduate in two years, he had to take a full load this semester (18 credit hours): including a three-some of undergraduate classes (since his undergrad was in a very different major)--called "the Core"--which alone would be almost enough to fill a semester, plus three graduate-level classes (one of which is PhD prep and is supposed to provide a homework load comparable to a PhD seminar. Yikes! Yes, he is very busy. But, despite the business, he is still loving it. He really enjoys Information Systems! :) So, that's pretty much us for now. I hope all is well with you!

About sanitized movies

You can't live in Utah for long before getting swept up in the controversy surrounding companies like CleanFlicks, CleanFilms, and ClearPlay regarding the "sanitizing" of adult-oriented films for general audiences. These companies buy DVDs and use a variety of tricks, including digitally trimming footage and creating audio drop-outs, to remove sex, violence, and foul language from today's R- and PG-13-rated movies. There's been quite a bit of discussion about this issue, and I confess that I do see both sides of it: on one hand, it's nice to see individuals taking a stand for decency in entertainment - and truthfully, there's a lot of unnecessary garbage in movies these days that adds nothing of value to a storyline. On the other hand, I understand how the actors, directors, cinematographers, and everyone else involved with a film project see their work as artistic expressions which should not be tampered with. As one who received an intensively arts-oriented education at my high school, I can understand these feelings quite easily. Not all art is intended to be pleasing to everyone - in fact, some art is made for the specific purpose of evoking strongly negative reactions from us. If you're one who falls into the camp of the potentially offended, the artists say that you're free to ignore their art and move on. There's just one complicating factor in it all, and it's a BIG one: Hollywood is a business industry. Most people who make movies do so not just for the love of their craft, but also to make money. And it's a long-established rule that studios are quite willing to edit this "art" to fit the specific needs of a given audience - airlines and television being two major examples. So why are they all up in a lather about what these little ol' Utah companies are doing? Well, the answer has nothing to do with copyright laws or preserving free speech, as noble of causes as they are (let's face it, the law only comes into play when people want justification for taking your money); it's the fact that Hollywood isn't getting a piece of the pie. But this is all beside the point. What's fascinating to me is the ethics of watching edited DVDs in a predominantly LDS society. Perhaps I'm alone in this, but as a faithful member of the Church I feel a great pressure (most likely perceived, but some of it real) about the movies I watch and the movies I display on my bookshelf. For instance, I think that Titanic is an excellent movie, but it has been so thoroughly vilified here in Happy Valley that I wouldn't dream of owning it for fear of getting kicked out of the Church. Likewise, I have passionate feelings about The Passion of the Christ, but there's a very strong opposition force to this film (led mostly by BYU religion professors and others who've never even seen it) which prevent me from ever disclosing my admiration for that film in public, except to a select few people. At the same time, I would also never even think about displaying a CleanFlicks copy of The Green Mile or The Insider (two edited films I've seen which I think are just outstanding) on my bookshelf. Why? Because people might see the titles but not know that the discs inside are edited for content. Every time I mention to someone else that I've seen an R-rated movie, I must be quick to mention that it was the "edited version" so he or she doesn't think I'm a heathen or something. An even more socially risky prospect is the one proposed by the ClearPlay model: stick in your unedited DVDs and place your faith in the system software to protect you from all the garbage. I visited a ClearPlay demonstration last Friday, and had enough questions about the hardware and software product to clearly make the demo guy quite nervous. When I asked him if there were ever any instances where the software failed (for whatever reason) to detect and omit offensive content, I was quickly rebuffed. "No," he flatly responded. Zero defects? Are you serious? From the technological side of things, that's living in a dream world. What the ClearPlay model asks consumers to do is rest their whole set of moral guidelines regarding entertainment on the promise of perfect technology. Seems like a pretty shaky foundation upon which to build your faith to me. Secondly, do you think I'll actually take the chance of going down to my local Blockbuster, grab a copy of House of Wax off the shelf, stand in line, and hope that no one I know sees me and judges me for my actions? Now, I know what you'll say: it's everyone else's fault for judging you. Yes, it is. But the sad truth is, that is the reality of being a member of the Church. People are always looking at you, making decisions about your character without your notice or your permission. We must always have the appearance of being Christlike. Our appearance does matter. So, let's say my bishop happens to walk into said Blockbuster store and sees me proudly holding my copy of said movie. Do you think he'll see me and think, "Oh, Bryan's going to be watching House of Wax on his ClearPlay DVD player tonight, because I know he'd never watch movies like that otherwise." Not a chance! So, those are two reasons why I'll never be a ClearPlay subscriber. But what about human-edited and authored DVDs from CleanFlicks and CleanFilms? Well, those I obviously have less of a problem with. But here's the kicker: By watching these edited films, I'm still supporting the R-rated industry. How, you ask? Well, companies like CleanFlicks and CleanFilms are the ones buying all the unedited movies. The more customers and the more demand they have, the more unedited DVDs they'll buy. So I as a consumer may feel like I'm sending a message to Hollywood by refusing to watch its filth, but the message is completely lost on it because it's still making plenty of money in Utah. And there's the ethical concern. We subscribed to the CleanFilms program for a little over a year, and through it were exposed to many movies we wouldn't have seen otherwise. But you'd have to give me some kind of magic memory elixir to remember the names of all the films we saw, because frankly, most of them were pretty forgettable. And there's the sad truth about R-rated movies: most of them just aren't worth your time anyway. We cancelled our subscription to CleanFilms a little while ago because of budget shortages. There are a few films I'm still somewhat interested in seeing "cleaned up," but I think a better solution is to just be a more discriminatory viewer, period. If the art offends you, move on to something else. With the exception of our CleanFilms period, I consider my movie-watching choices very seriously. I feel more at peace with my decisions that way. If I'm not willing to deal with everything contained in a movie, then I'll simply pass on it and move to something else. It makes my entertainment time more meaningful and less all-consuming as a result. But if I do get that sanitized version of The Green Mile, there's no way in heck I'm letting you see it on my shelf.

A few words about . . . Saints and Soldiers

The film: For months prior to its theatrical release, Saints and Soldiers had been at or near the top of my must-see list. Here was what looked to be a great war movie about Mormons, with none of the prohibitive content which made films like Saving Private Ryan and the HBO miniseries Band of Brothers inaccessible to most LDS audiences. Finally, it seemed, the Mormon cinema movement would be able to move past such sophomoric efforts like The Singles Ward and The Home Teachers (the latter of which remains unseen by me, probably for the best). I unfortunately missed seeing Saints and Soldiers during its first-run theatrical window, so I caught it at the Movies 8 (the dollar theater) in Provo some months later. I was so disappointed. Hugely disappointed. Saints and Soldiers appeared a total knock-off of the movies I mentioned earlier, and the comparison made those movies stand out even more. But worse still was the presentation of the film. Not only was the image terribly scratched and dirty, but the sound seemed confined to a single speaker behind the screen. Now, I'm not naive enough to think that a dollar theater should offer a state-of-the-art surround sound experience, but I at least expect to see my movies in stereo - you know, with two speakers instead of one. As if that weren't bad enough, what sound did come through the one speaker was completely hollowed out and dynamically flattened, as if it originated from a tin can. My experience was so terrible I originally wanted to go ask for my $1.50 back, but instead I have expressed my disgust with the dollar-movie experience by never going back to it. This was in early 2005. This probably belongs in a separate post, but with the total lack of quality control happening in multiplexes today, the increasing affordability of home theater systems, and the ability to rent movies from McDonald's RedBox for $1 a night, it's become both more financially viable, convenient, and plain enjoyable to watch movies here at home. If I don't catch the movie at a first-run theater, I'd now rather wait until it's DVD debut, which in these days of short theatrical-to-DVD release windows is usually 4-5 months. For me at least, the dollar movie theater has become almost completely disintermediated from my entertainment value chain. Recognizing that my disappointment with the movie may have been partially confounded by my total disgust for the theater experience, I decided that night that I would give Saints and Soldiers another shot on DVD, where I could have total control over the movie-watching experience. I'm glad I did, because my view of the film improved as a result. Saints and Soldiers is still a flawed movie. Director Ryan Little probably wanted to deliver a Saving Private Ryan-type experience to LDS audiences without all the R-rated profanity and gore, so for those who haven't seen Ryan, Soldiers will probably be received with great acclaim. But for others, the similarities between the two films are so remarkable that Soldiers appears to suffer from Ryan-envy. There's the same desaturated color palette, soldier stereotypes, and handheld camera techniques that Spielberg pioneered in Ryan on display here - even John Williams' fantastic score for Ryan is evoked more than once. In fact, the more I try to remember specific themes from the Soldiers score, the more Williams' music enters my mind. Even the font size on the closing credits emulates Spielberg's film. And there's another similarity between the main characters of these two films which I won't delve into for spoiler reasons - but if you've seen Ryan, you can likely predict what happens. The other weak link in the movie is Kirby Heybourne. Hey, I know that the film was shot on a low budget in the Wasatch mountains, but the casting director could have at least hired a British actor to play the role of the British soldier (and it's not like BYU is short of international students willing to play the part or provide connections to others who can). Kirby is a fine actor (see The Best Two Years as an example), but he's not right for the role. In addition, because he's appeared in 2 out of every 3 Mormon movies made up to this point, the audience is less focused on Heybourne's character and more on Heybourne himself. (People in the theater were whispering, "Hey, is that the 'R.M.' guy?") Heybourne tries so hard to pull off a British accent, but he works so hard at it that it lessens his overall craft. He sounds too refined and David Niven-like that even when he's supposed to sound angry and emotional you can tell he's restraining himself because he's got to constantly keep his accent "on." The film would have been better with a British actor who doesn't need to watch his accent and can just concentrate on his part. All that said, however, I really did like the film's theme of finding brotherhood across enemy lines. This aspect was touched upon briefly in Part 10 of Band of Brothers, but Soldiers carries it multiple steps farther. Many GIs who only knew that the other side delivered death and destruction at every opportunity began to view them with total hatred and disgust; the idea (both during and after the war) that the German soldiers were "guys just like us" is a powerful theme which was lost of some of the soldiers, but not all. On a personal note, the patriarch who blessed me ten years ago was a German immigrant who, along with his brother, was roped into fighting on the German side during WWII. His brother is a sealer in the Chicago Temple, and both are tremendous men of faith. I'd like to see more movies explore this line of thought - humanizing "the other side." Granted, there were plenty of monsters masquerading as men on the German side as well, but we had them too. That's the funny thing about war, something that makes it such a rich topic for exploring human nature: it's never completely black-and-white. Is Saints and Soldiers good? Yes. I'm glad I gave it a second chance on DVD. Does it match up well against other war movies? It's a decent entry, yes, and a good indicator of better Mormon cinema projects to come, but there are better examples of the war genre out there. Image Quality: Much improved over my theatrical experience, but this film's image suffers from the same authoring flaws that other discs from Excel Entertainment have demonstrated, namely excessive sharpening. One might mistake this for great detail, but the sharpness is pumped up to such an extreme that one can see edge haloes surrounding nearly every object on the screen. Details that should look soft come across as very hard and stiff, and there's plenty of mosquito noise on screen as well. On the plus side, whites and earth tones are terrific, and blood appears a deep, rich red. A potentially great image let down by poor disc authoring. Sound Quality: Wow! The Dolby Digital 5.1 track is very immersive. Surrounds get a real workout here, and gunshots get a sharp, clear, and visceral sound effect that's very involving. Bass is very tight, with only one instance of "boominess" that I can recall. Dialogue is also very crisp and intelligible. This track was such a massive improvement over the dismal theatrical experience that at times I felt I was watching a completely different movie! Very involving sound design here, and hats off to the team that made it happen on such a small budget. Overall: Saints and Soldiers is a good movie for LDS audiences who haven't seen some of the better albeit more graphic war movies out there, of which Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers are two WWII-specific examples. I appreciated the lack of R-rated content, but the production evokes too much of Ryan and the casting choice of Heybourne was ill-advised. Mormon cinema will more fully come into its own when its creators stop trying to create LDS-tinted versions of Hollywood films and film their own uniquely-inspired ideas. Rated: PG-13 for war violence and related images. The Malmedy massacre is depicted at the beginning of the film, and various good and bad guys are shot and killed during the course of the film. Although blood is seen, it's not in the realistic amounts which Ryan and Brothers depict as a result of gunshot wounds, which can be somewhat harrowing. A character is shot in the neck, but the camera wisely avoids close-ups - a change which was probably made to avoid the R rating the MPAA initially slapped the film with. There's also a brief close-up of a medic working on a gunshot wound to another character's leg which might be a bit much for the squeamish.

A few words about . . . Turtles Can Fly

The film: Turtles Can Fly claims the distinction of being the first movie filmed in Iraq following the downfall of Saddam Hussein's regime in spring 2003. It appears shot on a fairly low budget, using local Kurdish actors and true-life sets. It is a tough film to evaluate; perhaps the fact that I am still thinking about it more than an hour and a half after watching it means it is a great film. I'm still not sure. The movie is set in a Kurdish refugee camp on the border between Iraq and Turkey. There are few adults of importance in this story; what few there are exist mainly on the periphery. This is a story about children, presumably all of them orphans, because we never meet a single convincing parental figure here. They are led by a pre-teen nicknamed Satellite (we never learn his real name, but really, for children nicknames are their real names), who directs his crew in scavenging for old radios and disarming the live mines scattered around their camp. He then employs a bit of shrewd deal-making to trade in the stuff for technology which would be unattainable by most of the refugees alone: things like satellite dishes, for instance, which bring in plenty of "forbidden" channels (music videos and such), but also news sources like CNN. The refugees are hearing rumors of an impending American invasion into Iraq, so they eagerly tune in to the news in the hope of being able to glean something from what they watch. No one can understand English, of course, so they depend on Satellite to translate; he, of course, doesn't know English either, but he makes up something plausible to appease their demands. Speaking of the land mines, most of the time the children are successful in disarming them, but sometimes they are not. Many of the children are without arms or legs from handling the mines. Satellite is one of the few "whole" children among them. But his world is disrupted upon the arrival of three children into the camp. One is a boy without arms who can dismantle the mines with his teeth. Another is his pretty but shy sister. Finally, there is a young child, presumably the baby brother of the group. But this is not his true relationship to them. This is the basic premise of the story; to reveal additional details would veer us off into spoiler territory. Suffice it to say, the Americans do come as rumored, but it isn't long before the refugees realize that the armed forces haven't come specfically to do anything for them. Were they under the wrong impression? That is up to the viewer to decide, ultimately. A number of reviews of this film have encouraged everyone with an opinion on the Iraq war to watch this movie, because it might change your mind. No, there is no political agenda on display here, just a "slice of life," if you will. I don't know if the movie changed my mind about Iraq, but it did add some valuable perspective to the situation. I form my own opinions. A word of caution: as I mentioned earlier, this is a tough film. It's in Kurdish with English subtitles, so it might be tough for Anglophiles to sit through. It's almost entirely about children, and bad things happen to children just like they happen to adults, but for some reason it's always more difficult to watch them suffer. And it doesn't have a happy ending. There's plenty of tragedy here, and the film closes on a contemplative note. However, the performances are outstanding; this is probably the best bunch of "kid actors" I've ever seen. They really sell the material, and I wonder if that is so because of similar real-life experiences. This is a thought-provoking, heart-breaking film. Image quality: This is a pretty low-budget affair, but it's not too bad. Colors are rather muted, but the overall scheme fits with the tone of the movie. Sharpness was fine, but with a bit of edge enhancement thrown in too. A very gray, earthy image, but it's passable. Sound quality: There's just a Dolby 2.0 track on this disc, but the mix really doesn't contain much that would merit a all-out 5.1 option anyway. This is a mostly dialogue-driven film, but since I can't understand Kurdish anyway, it didn't matter too much to me. A few helicopters and jets fly overhead, giving the surround speakers a little something to do, but the mix is fairly muted most of the time. It's appropriate for the material and the budget, in my opinion. Overall: Turtles Can Fly is not for everyone. There's very little depicted violence, but it's pretty harrowing stuff nonetheless. However, if you consider yourself more of a film lover than a multiplex, popcorn-and-soda flick kind of person (and you know who you are), I recommend giving it a spin. Rated: PG-13 for violence, disturbing images and mature thematic material, all involving children. Child rape is implied, there's an intense scene involving a small child in a minefield, and a woman chooses to kill her baby and herself. The rating is quite appropriate; the thematic material in this film is too much for young children to handle.

A few words about . . . Star Wars: Episode III

The film: Since it's practically impossible for me to add anything new to all that has been written and said about the latest (and last) film in the Star Wars saga, I'll skip the plot recap and move right into the things I did and didn't like about the movie. If you're one of the few people on earth who hasn't seen Episode III yet but plans to, get thee to a video store and come back after you're done watching it. Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith is easily the best of the prequel trilogy, and offers a few sequences of such power and emotion that it almost makes you forget its weaknesses and (for a moment) consider it on par with A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back. Don't be lured into that trap. Comparing the prequel trilogy and the original trilogy is like comparing apples and oranges - strengths and weaknesses abound in both, even though they're bound by an identical headline. Personally, I've grown a bit weary from countless viewings of the OT (ANH especially), so I naturally watch the PT a little more often these days. But jeez, I just about cringe every time Anakin, Padme and the gang open their mouths. George Lucas is an incredible visualist, perhaps even a genius in that regard, but he has difficulty writing dialogue that sounds believable instead of eye-rollingly hokey. I wonder if part of the problem is a lack of scenery to give context to the actors' performances: pretending that your surroundings exist while you're being filmed on a soundstage against a blue screen must be pretty hard. Thank goodness the actors are, for the most part, game for it. Speaking of the dialogue, it's not quite as atrocious in this film as in its predecessors (Anakin's creepy "stalker" lines to Padme in Attack of the Clones being the worst example), a huge relief to this viewer. And while the CGI in this film looks better than ever, it still comes across at times like a two-hour video game, which is unfortunate. But one thing has always been true about Star Wars: it isn't about Oscar-caliber writing, acting, or directing; it's about giving us really cool stuff to look at, along with the best sound mixes to ever rock your home theater. And on that level, ROTS delivers in spades. For me though, the best scenes in the movie are the quiet ones. Paradoxical, huh? Anakin's scenes with Palpatine (pre-Emperor), both in the opera house balcony and later outside his office, are terrific in how they feature Palpatine subtlely twisting the screws, gently manipulating the interpretation of events and people's intentions in Anakin's mind until he can see no reality but the one Palpatine dictates to him. Check out the deleted scenes on Disc Two for a great moment where Palpatine even influences Anakin to question Padme's true motives. Great stuff. Also of mention is a terrific sequence with Anakin and Padme looking out toward one other from across the city. No dialogue is spoken, but the images and the music(!) convey so much. Just perfect. Given what I see as the film's many strengths, I can more easily forgive some of the sillier elements, as I have done with the previous prequel movies. ROTS supplies great connective tissue to the events in the OT, and it sends the Star Wars series out on a high note. Image quality: Nothing short of perfection. Shot entirely with digital cameras, the visual quality of ROTS is easily reference standard and among the best transfers the standard DVD format has ever seen. I could go on and on about how amazing, breathtakingly beautiful, and richly detailed this transfer is, but I'll sum it up in these words: no other DVD I've seen has made me want to upgrade to a large HD set more than this one. There's just so much on display here that smaller sets simply cannot do justice to it all. Sound quality: Better make nice with the neighbors again. This Dolby Digital 5.1 EX track is stellar, although subtly different from the previous two films' mixes. There's still plenty of surround activity, with crystal-clear dialogue and wall-shaking bass, although the latter is somewhat less prominent than in the previous films (particularly when compared to AOTC, which sounded pretty overcooked). I know that the lack of continually thunderous bass will disappoint a few fans, but I think the mix more than makes up for the loss (if you care to call it that) by emphasizing John Williams' outstanding score, which has tended to get lost in all the sound effects of the DVD sound mixes. But for all you bass-heads out there, check out the opening spaceship battle and the final duel on Mustafar for some great rumbles. Overall: Recommended for older Star Wars fans, Revenge of the Sith features some pretty dark moments which may be too intense for the younger set. However, the movie provides great closure to the epic saga and is definitely worth adding to your collection. Rated: PG-13 for sci-fi violence and some intense images. A man is decapitated (mostly off-screen), another is depicted burned alive, several others lose arms and legs from lightsaber swipes, strong violence against children is implied but not seen, and many innocent people die. It's important to remember that this dark chapter is not the end of the series, just a lead-in to A New Hope. If you doubt that this saga has a happy ending, go back and watch Return of the Jedi again.

A few words about . . . Lilo & Stitch 2

The film: Tarzan and Lilo & Stitch are some of my favorite Disney animated films from recent years, so it's unfortunate that the Mouse House has seen fit to milk these two franchises for all they're worth (sad to think that with Disney there are no stand-alone "films" - just beginnings of franchises). Neither of the Tarzan direct-to-video efforts ever caught my interest, but I love Lilo & Stitch enough to be lured back into their world time and again (never watched the TV series, though). Disney's first return to that particular well, Stitch! The Movie, was so profoundly immature and flat-out boring that I actually apologized to my wife for wasting 70 minutes of her life. Everything that I loved about the original movie had been dumbed-down and commoditized such that it resembled every other half-baked and bland Disney direct-to-video and TV cartoon product out there. Now there's Lilo & Stitch 2, and while it still doesn't recapture the magic of the first movie, it's decent enough to merit a viewing from all you Stitch fans out there. The film wisely acts as if the prior Stitch! The Movie never existed (yet), which means it isn't hamstrung by the bloated and contrived scenario of that flick. There's more "ohana" stuff, and both Lilo and Stitch undergo crises which reveal themselves to be roughly parallel journeys at the end of the movie. There is a degree of the Idiot Plot in this one, though - readers of Roger Ebert's reviews will note that the Idiot Plot is where the story requires all of its characters to be stupid and not say the one thing that would solve their dilemma because, hey, then there'd be no movie. So there's a bit of that. In addition, the writers don't do too much to expand on the wonderful universe brought to life in the first movie, which means more Elvis references, more fish-out-of-water sequences with the various aliens, and a tacked-on subplot dealing with David and Nani's maybe-relationship. It's nothing too eye-rolling, though, and the animators work hard to replicate the animation style of the first film. As a direct-to-video product, Lilo & Stitch 2 is far better than just about anything that has come from its TV animation studio since The Return of Jafar way back when. Image quality: Very nice. The beautiful watercolor backgrounds and tropical hues make the movie's image a feast for the eyes. Objects on the screen were consistently in focus with appropriate detail and no discernible edge enhancement. Sound quality: Here's a stunner - Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS 5.1 tracks! (Still waiting for DTS on that interminably delayed Lilo & Stitch Special Edition, Disney!) Naturally, I chose the DTS track, and it offered an above-average experience. While the LFE never really reached the wall-shaking lows of the first movie, it was decent enough when certain scenes merited it. The biggest surprise of this track, however, was all the directional dialogue in the mix. As the camera moves ahead of characters in the foreground, their voices carry on from the surround channels - a realistic but surprising element to be found in this of all movies! Nicely done. Overall: If you loved the original, you owe it to yourself to check out Lilo & Stitch 2. I wouldn't necessarily say it's worth owning, but it's a nice, harmless diversion if you're tired of dealing with all the mucky entertainment out there. If you didn't care much for the first movie, though, you can easily skip it. Rated: PG for some mild action. Stitch wreaks a little mild havoc, displays a bad attitude, and occasionally lashes out against Lilo, although it's not wholly intentional.

A few words about . . . Robots

The film: Robots is without a doubt one of the most visually amazing movies I have ever seen. The world which the animators created (and believe me when I say it is fleshed out sufficiently to merit such a designation) is so rich with detail and life that I found myself staring at the screen in awe nearly the entire time. Then the characters opened their mouths, and the whole thing fell apart. I wish I could say that the movie's greatest sin is it's totally pedestrian plot, with characters who fail to distinguish themselves in any manner beyond the usual "buddy movie" and "evil corporate bigwig" stereotypes. No, I think I could forgive that because, man, what amazing visuals! Even the wasted use of Robin Williams could be overlooked. No, what makes this movie one of the most disappointing films I've seen in recent months is that it squandered all of its potential on a storyline filled with juvenile bathroom humor. "Is that it?" you say. Well, yeah. Call me a little overzealous, but I like kids' animated films without all of the sex and bodily function jokes, thank you very much. Yes, I realize that Robots is rated PG, yadda yadda yadda, but I still don't buy it. Want to know why? Just take a look at the competition: Pixar. At Pixar they constantly say that the most important element of any movie is the story - the visuals are simply the medium of delivery. And you can tell that is true by the very absence of lowbrow material in their films. It just isn't there. Sex and bodily function jokes, even mild, keep-'em-light-so-hopefully-they'll-go-over-the-kids'-heads ones, are a lazy man's way of writing a script. That's all there is to it. And if I were a betting man (which I'm not), I'd wager that so long as PDI and Blue Sky (the creators of Shrek and Ice Age, respectively - Robots hails from the latter) continue to put that kind of garbage in their animated movies, they will never be as respected or profitable as Pixar. Now let's just hope that Pixar continues to take the high road to show everyone else how it's done. The whole thing is a shame, really, because it's painfully obvious that Blue Sky and 20th Century Fox pulled out all the stops to bring together some of the best talent in the business to create Robots. The voice cast is a star-studded line-up with names like Ewan McGregor, Halle Berry, Mel Brooks, Drew Carey, Greg Kinnear, Jay Leno, and the aforementioned Robin Williams (a long way from Aladdin with this one). The animators went to incredible, pain-staking detail to create a fun and involving world that, again, is utterly amazing. There are even a good number of non-crass jokes and sight gags which had me laughing quite a bit. It's too bad they couldn't get an all-star team in the area where it counts the most: the screenwriting. Robots is the kind of film I would willingly pay money to see on the big screen, to more fully drink in all the amazing visuals. But please, turn off the sound so I can enjoy the movie. Image quality: With a completely digital transfer from computer to DVD going for it, this is where Robots really shines. All the usual strengths of the breed are present: crystal-clear image, vivid color, no edge enhancement, and a striking sense of depth. Wonderful, wonderful. By the way, widescreen and foolscreen versions of this film are available, so be sure to get the right one if you choose to check this movie out. Sound quality: Robots offers us both Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS 5.1 soundtracks. Being a bit partial to DTS myself, I chose the latter, and it offered a pleasing auditory experience. The soundfield was broad, with a nice dynamic range providing sweet highs as well as nice, satisfying bass. Your sub will get some decent exercise with this one. Effects were well-distributed throughout the soundstage, which leaned a tad toward the front, but surround activity was appropriate for the scenes in which it was present. Overall: If you're the type of person who doesn't mind a lot of mild potty humor and innuendo, you just might enjoy Robots. For me, however, the film is all style and little substance. A real shame. Rated: PG for some brief language and suggestive humor.