"Community" wins an early Emmy ... and it's a great one

It's still a pretty major - though thoroughly unsurprising - bummer that "Community," easily one of the funniest shows on TV right now, wasn't even nominated in any of the major categories at this year's Emmys, but this early award is well-deserved and certainly honors a bright spot in the network TV landscape.

If you managed to miss last year's Christmas episode, "Abed's Uncontrollable Christmas," you missed a real winner. It was, as usual, fun, funny and completely irreverent, but also, as you can see above, was rendered in rather glorious stop-motion animation.

And for that, character animator Drew Hodges has won one of the Emmys for Individual Achievement in Animation. Huzzah, kudos, bully and anything else you can think of to that!

In other news, and in keeping with animation, one of my favorite animation studios, Laika, is coming back with what should be an entirely fun project. The studio has just optioned "Wildwood," the children's novel written by Decembrists frontman Colin Meloy (a band that every smart person I know tells me I should listen to, but that I juat haven't gotten around to yet.)

According to Comingsoon.net, "the first book in an epic middle-grade fantasy series full of magic, wonder and danger set in an alternate version of modern-day Portland, tells the story of Prue McKeel, whose ordinary life is changed forever when her younger brother is abducted by a murder of crows and taken to the Impassable Wilderness, an enchanted and forbidding forest on the edge of the city."

Bring it on for sure. And though Laika may have lost stop-motion mastermind Henry Selick to the behemoth known as Pixar, what they can do with the medium is still very impressive, so stay tuned for more on this as soon as I can find it.

And in other movie news, if you managed to miss Jacques Audiard's "A Prophet," I'd recommend you correct that oversight ASAP with a rental. While it's not quite the French "Godfather," as many people have called it, it is an engaging tale about one man's encounter with the mafia as he searches for his own identity while in prison. A can't-miss pick.

And now comes word that Audiard is ready to get back to work, and he's bringing the thoroughly beguiling Marion Cotillard along with him. The French charmer will star in Audiard's next movie, "Rust and Bone," to be based on a short story collection by Craig Davidson.

In the book, also according to Comingsoon.net, Davidson "conjures a savage world populated by fighting dogs, prizefighters, sex addicts and gamblers. The 27 bones of the title story are the bones in a boxer's hands; once broken, they never heal properly, and the fighter's career descends to bouts that have less to do with sport than with survival: no referee, no rules, not even gloves. In "A Mean Utility" we enter an even more desperate arena: dogfights where Rottweilers, pit bulls and Dobermans fight each other to the death."

A savage realm indeed, and if you saw "A Prophet," you know Audiard will be up to the job.

And finally, I'll leave you today with a nifty featurette for probably the single movie I'm most looking forward to seeing this fall, Tomas Alfredson's take on "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy." The novel by John Le Carre is about George Smiley's (this time out, Gary Oldman) attempts to ferret out a Russian mole in the ranks of Britain's spooks. With the cast also featuring Colin Firth, Tom Hardy, Mark Strong, Ciaran Hinds and even Sherlock himself, Benedict Cumberbatch, I can't see anyway this will be anything but a sure winner when it comes out Dec. 9 in the USA (and early festival reviews have confirmed it as exactly that.) Enjoy the featurette, and have a perfectly pleasant Thursday. Peace out.

What's next for Danny Boyle?

This is only a rumor I've seen at one site, Deadline, so far, but it's pretty friggin' great, so I'm gonna go with it.

Unfortunately, the next thing that Danny Boyle will be directing that anyone will be able to see will be the opening ceremonies for the 2012 Olympics in London, but before and again after that he's apparently returning to the grittier kinds of movies that he was known for in the early days.

Per Deadline, he's going to begin directing the thriller "Trance" in London this September, and here's what the site says it's about:

"I'm told it's an art heist gone wrong, and it's got the dark, sexy, hard-edged tone of Boyle films like Shallow Grave and Trainspotting," says the site.

Not much to run with there, but "Shallow Grave" is indeed one of my favorite movies of all time, and though he's made plenty of great movies since they started to take on a much more optimistic tone (except for "Sunshine," man did that suck), a return to the early days for Boyle should be nothing but fun. Unfortunately, with the Olympics coming, he's going to begin the filming this Fall, but then put this on the shelf for a while, and then pick it up again for a potential March 2013 release. Bummer there, but still mostly good news. Stay tuned ...

In other movie news, the animation company Laika, which with "Coraline" has made what is still the only animated movie I've really enjoyed watching in 3-D, is joining up with Focus Features for a new stop-motion offering. Unfortunately for them, "Coraline" mastermind Henry Selick has moved on to Pixar (I think), but it still sounds like what they're cooking up now should be a lot of fun.

"Paranorman" is a comedy/thriller about a small town being attacked by zombies and has a voice cast featuring, among others, Casey Affleck, Tempestt Bledsoe, Jeff Garlin, John Goodman, Anna Kendrick, Leslie Mann, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Kodi Smit-McPhee and Elaine Stritch.

And though Selick is nowhere to be found, this seems to be in good hands with "Flushed Away" director Sam Fell and Chris Butler, storyboard supervisor for "Coraline," teaming up to direct this. Butler also wrote the screenplay.

OK, after that today, a fairly brief look at what's ahead on "The Office," segueing into a couple of videos that caught my eye this morning.

After watching the departure of Michael Scott, which if Will Ferrell hadn't been on it would have been just about perfect, I think it would have been, frankly, a great place to simply end the show for good. Nothing against Ferrell in general, because I often like him quite a bit, but he's simply not funny on "The Office," and the truly nonfunny scenes with he and Andy (Ed Helms) just took away from Michael's pretty universally great goodbyes (having Creed hoist his "World's Greatest Boss" mug was an especially nice touch).

So, now that he's gone, what's ahead? Here, courtesy of NBC, are the synopses for the next three weeks, going until the end of the season.

Tonight: "The Inner Circle"
Deangelo’s true management style is finally revealed; he plays favorites by creating his own “inner circle.” Guest stars: Will Ferrell, Cody Horn.

Next Week: "Dwight K. Schrute, (Acting) Manager"
Dwight takes over as acting manager and applies draconian tactics to the office. Meanwhile, Gabe tries to win Erin back. Guest star: Kathy Bates.

May 19: "Search Committee"
Season Finale. Double episode. Guest stars: Jim Carrey, James Spader, Will Arnett, Ray Romano, Ricky Gervais, Catherine Tate.

That's a lot of star power, obviously, but my money and my fan heart are still on Catherine Tate, simply because that would be the best possible outcome since the show apparently must go on.

And to prove that I really, in general, have nothing against Will Ferrell, he returned as George W. Bush (of course) just in time for the death of Osama Bin Laden for this Funny or Die video. The whole thing is pretty great, so I won't spoil it with any more words from me except to say stick around until the end when he explains why this is "a great day for America." Priceless.

And finally, I had been pretty skeptical that "Green Lantern" would amount to anything but thoroughly silly, but while it certainly will be that, judging from this first trailer, it should be pretty epicly fun too. Starring Ryan Reynolds and "Gossip Girl" Blake Lively and being directed by Martin Campbell, it's set for release June 17. Enjoy the trailer, and if you'll excuse me, I'm off now for a swim and then headed back to the Atlanta Film Festival. Peace out.

10 truly odd Christmas movies that capture the spirit

I have nothing at all against the traditional holiday favorites when it comes to movies and specials. I tune in every year for "A Charlie Brown Christmas," and always watch one of the 1,000,000 or so times that TBS airs "A Christmas Story."

But as with most categories of movies, I like my Christmas flicks with at least a few drops of odd, so here are my 10 favorite Christmas-related movies that you might not always think of this time of year.

"A Midnight Clear:" Before the two sides inevitably get back to, well, war, this Peter Berg movie has plenty of Christmas spirit as an American intelligence squad comes across a German platoon wishing to surrender in 1944 France, and everyone enjoys a good holiday feast before they get back to battling.

"Bad Santa": Not only easily the funniest Christmas movie (but certainly not one for the kids), I'd also argue that Billy Bob Thornton's mall Santa has his very drunk, extremely foul-mouthed heart still mostly in the right place. After all, all he wants to do is get his new friend a pink elephant (of course) for Christmas.

"Eastern Promises": OK, this gangster movie might only take place between Christmas and New Year's Eve and have little else to do with the holidays, but David Cronenberg's flick is still here because I wouldn't mess with Viggo Mortensen's Nikolai and tell him otherwise, would you?

"Die Hard": What could exemplify the Christmas spirit more than Bruce Willis' dream of spending the holiday with his estranged wife - even if he has to blow up half of Los Angeles to make it happen?

"In Bruges": Talk about a bummer: Not only does Colin Farrell's hit man end up accidentally killing a child, he then has to spend Christmas in the most boring place on Earth, Bruges (having been there, I can tell you it's far from that, but that's just one of the things that make this wickedly funny movie one of my all-time favorites).

"The Nightmare Before Christmas": Though its full title bears the name of Tim Burton and its in fact based on a poem Burton wrote, this tale of what happens when Jack Skellington opens the portal between Halloween Town and Christmas Town is pure Henry Selick, and that's what makes the stop-motion animated tale a timeless treat.

"Trading Places": Though I like presents as much as anyone, what's Christmas if we can't occasionally poke fun at all our excess, as this '80s flick starring Eddie Murphy and Dan Akroyd (easily one the best movies either of them ever made) does so well.

"The Muppet Christmas Carol": Of course Michael Caine (as Ebenezer Scrooge) just wants poor Bob Cratchit (Kermit the Frog, naturally) to work on Christmas - does that man ever stop working? Just in time for Christmas next year - or maybe a little earlier - we'll get a great gift, a new Muppets movie. Bully.

"Go!": Another one that's not for the kids, but Christmas is definitely a time to party, as Sarah Polley, Katie Holmes and others do as they rave their way through a chaotic Christmas Eve.

"Life of Brian": Sacrilegious? Most certainly, but the Monty Python take on the life of Jesus Christ is of course extremely funny too. And believe it or not, I really did first see this at an Episcopal youth group gathering when I was a teenager.

Merry Christmas to everyone!

Reger Ebert's dead right: 3-D just sucks (insert your own funny noun here)

In case anyone's wondering, I'm well aware that there really is nothing that Roger Ebert - and much, much less me - can do to stop the extremely profitable plague that is 3-D, but the world is still just a little better place because he keeps trying.

In what I have to assume is the most recent issue of Newsweek, the estimable film critic for the Chicago Sun Times outlines extremely rational and convincing reasons why 3-D just sucks so hard (though he doesn't put it quite that way, of course.) It's very well worth reading his entire piece, which you can do here, but I've taken the liberty of reprinting his lead, which just about nails things very economically:

3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood's current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose. For moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for.

He pretty much states his entire case there, but it's still worth reading his full explanation. I'd just like to mention the two aspects of 3-D that just drive me batty, even more than the fact that it arbitrarily costs more (and more, just wait.)

The main point, which Ebert elaborates on, is that 3-D is indeed just an imagination slaughterer. Movies are meant to take you away, if only for a little while, from whatever is upsetting in your actual life. You, or at least I, can dive completely into the world unveiled in front of you, and further create it in your mind as a fully fleshed-out universe. Given that, why in the world would you want a computer to artificially do this for you? It just robs you of much of the moviegoing experience, so in my mind, it should cost less, not more, to watch. 'Nuff said.

A second point that Ebert addresses and I agree with wholeheartedly is that 3-D movies are indeed more than a bit "dim," especially the animated ones. The perfect case in point is "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs," just about the very last animated movie I'll ever see in 3-D for this reason. I watched it in 3-D first, and while it was very funny and still entertaining, it appeared to be filled with giant scoops of gray ice cream and beige pizza. Who wants that? Fully aware that it makes the first viewing a waste of money, I went back a week later and watched the movie in glorious 2-D, and the colors really just exploded off the screen. It was just a much more enjoyable experience. For that reason, I'm through with 3-D animation from anyone working now except for Henry Selick, who proved with "Coraline" that he knows how to use it to genuinely enhance the experience.

Ebert offered a technical reason for this a**-awful phenomenon:

Lenny Lipton is known as the father of the electronic stereoscopic-display industry. He knows how films made with his systems should look. Current digital projectors, he writes, are "intrinsically inefficient. Half the light goes to one eye and half to the other, which immediately results in a 50 percent reduction in illumination."

Why in the world would you pay MORE for that? OK, enough about that. Definitely take the time to read Ebert's essay, and I'll leave you with a very funny mashup of "Seinfeld" that reimagines George's life as a seriously dramatic Hollywood movie. Just about perfect. Peace out.

Just about the best news animation fans could possibly hope for

Actually, before we get into any of that goodness today, there's some very dark news about the world of TV, which directly impacts the show I was most amped about for the entire coming year (which is, when you think about it, just about the least important thing about this.)

David Mills, who worked closely with David Simon and like Simon was a former newspaper reporter (Mills for the Washington Post and Simon for the Baltimore Sun), died Tuesday night of an aneurysm on the set of "Treme," the post-Katrina New Orleans series he was developing with Simon for HBO (set to debut two Sundays from now, assuming this news doesn't change that.)

Once he crossed over into TV, Mills, like Simon, had a big hand in creating some of the best TV shows of the last 20 years or so. And I'm very far from exaggerating here. He wrote episodes of "The Wire," "Homicide: Life on the Street, "ER" and "NYPD Blue," and also served as a producer for "ER" and "NYPD Blue." His greatest accomplishment, however, was probably serving as executive producer and co-writer along with Simon and Ed Burns for the simply stunning HBO miniseries "The Corner," easily the most depressing thing to come out of Baltimore besides the Orioles, but still very worth watching (and which netted him two Emmys.)

And saddest of all is that he played a key role in "Treme" at the time of his death, serving as executive producer and having already written two episodes. I'm still planning to re-up on HBO in time for the premiere of this and long enough to watch "True Blood" season 3, but this is just a sad day all around indeed. Rest in peace, Mr. Mills.

You can read a much better obituary for the man written by his fellow "Treme" creators here.

OK, enough sad stuff, because for fans of great animation, there's news out there that is nothing short of incredible. Stop-motion master Henry Selick made my favorite animated movie of 2009 in "Coraline" (followed closely by "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs.") Shortly after that, however, he was left immediately unemployed after the animation house he toiled for, Laika, closed up shop.

Now, however, that's all changed, and in the best possible way. Selick has just signed a long-term deal to create more stop-motion movies for Disney/Pixar. There's no word yet on exactly what he has in mind first, but I'm betting that anything that springs from his very active mind will be nothing short of amazing.

Remember that it was Selick not, as many people mistakenly think, Tim Burton, who directed "The Nightmare Before Christmas," and he also made the even better Roald Dahl adaptation "James and the Giant Peach" (if you missed that, as many people did, rent it immediately.) And beyond giving him work to do, this welcome move hopefully shows that, despite Pixar's current fixation with 3-D, it and Disney will keep being committed to making all kinds of animated movies.

And finally today, I just got around to examining the lineup for the 2010 edition of the Atlanta Film Festival 365 (for which I'm somehow a member of the press), and it looks great. The Atlanta fest is really homegrown, featuring a lot of regional fare and, this year, a focus on civil rights and music documentaries. I'm incredibly psyched that included in the latter category will be the closing night movie, "The Secret to a Happy Ending," a doco about my favorite rock band by far, the Drive-By Truckers (followed, apparently, by most of the band playing for a party that I WILL get in to.)

But the festival has narrative features too, of course, and I think the one I'm most looking forward to is "The Good Heart." It stars two of my favorite actors in Brian Cox and Paul Dano. Cox plays the owner of a New York dive bar who is slowly drinking and smoking himself to death until he meets Dano's character, a young homeless man who he takes under his wing. I don't know much more than that, but it's enough to get me rather amped for this. Here's the first clip I know of for the movie. Enjoy, and have a perfectly pleasant Thursday. Peace out.

With apologies to Smokey, only you can stop the 3-D plague

Actually, if I can start with a movie you all should go see ('cause I do try to keep a positive outlook on things from time to time), if you live in one of our major cities, go see Jacques Audiard's "Un Prophete" while you still have the chance.

One thing people should learn early in life is to believe at least almost everything their parents say, and this is one case that proves that solidly. When my parents compared Audiard's movie to "The Godfather" in terms of both story and quality, I was sure they had to be exaggerating, but thankfully not.

Indeed, the journey that's undergone by the titular character (Tahar Rahim) does in a way mirror the development of Michael Corleone, and it's simply mesmerising to watch (and I promise you won't even notice until the very end that it's nearly three hours long.) The movie is about what he has to do to survive a six-year term in prison, but there's a whole lot going on in that deceptively simple story arc, and the flick is packed with little moments that are magical as stand-alone nuggets but just devastating when you pile them all together (my favorite would have to be when he sticks out his tongue while going through airport security because that's the only way he knows to get searched. Priceless.)

I had never heard of Audiard until last weekend, but now at the top of my Netflix queue to be watched this weekend are his last two movies, "The Beat My Heart Skipped" and "Read My Lips." And I really can't recommend a movie much higher at all than I can "Un Prophete," so please go see it while you still have the chance.

OK, after that today, it's not quite so sunny (until the grand finale, which will thankfully feature the blissfully silly trailer for Jean Pierre Jeunet's "Micmacs," shortened, I believe, from "Micmacs Tire a Larigot.")

Now, I'm usually not one to tell people not to see movies in any form, being a firm believer in the right of people to make up their own damn minds, even if that means you go see Miley Cyrus' new movie this week. When it comes to the 3-D virus, however, a stand has to be taken, and this is indeed the week to do it (though, in case you're wondering, yes, I am well aware that I don't have to power to lead it ... nonetheless ...).

And yes, I do concede that (very rarely) the 3-D gimmick does have merit. I saw "Avatar" two times and loved it more the second one, and I thought the 3-D was used to even better effect in Henry Selick's thoroughly charming "Coraline." But, as far as I know (and I only have doubts about the latter), those were two movies conceived and shot in 3-D, rather than simply "converted" to it afterward (which is when it's outed as the complete gimmick it is.)

I would be willing to just dismiss the 3-D phenomenon as a passing fad and continue to see all my movies in glorious 2-D ("Alice in Wonderland," by the way, was fantastic when viewed the old-fashioned way, and cheaper too!), but it's of course gone well beyond that stage already. When you have studios like Warner Bros. (and possibly others already too) announcing all their "tentpole" movies from now on will be released in 3-D (exaggerate much?), it's time to learn to just say no, because clearly they can't.

So, what prompted this screed? Well, two things. First up comes the rather welcome news that in the wake of the disappointing opening of "How to Train Your Dragon" (is $44 million really disappointing? Apparently so), stock in Dreamworks dropped 8 percent on Monday. Now, I haven't seen the movie (as already established, this arthouse snob spent Saturday afternoon watching "Un Prophete" instead), but every war has to start somewhere, and if this 3-D flick has to be the first fatality, so be it.

The second thing that set me off is that Louis Leterrier's remake of "Clash of the Titans" opens this week, and as tempting as it is pop for those goofy glasses to see the Kraken in 3-D, this man at least is gonna see it in good, old-fashioned 2-D, and I'm enlisting you to do so too (if you see it all.) After all, Regal and AMC, at least, have already raised 3-D ticket prices across the board, with other companies sure to follow suit and, if no one squawks (as I'm trying to do now), more increases sure to come.

And it obviously doesn't stop with "Clash of the Titans." Other upcoming movies for which you can make the rational choice of 2-D over 3-D include Ridley Scott's "Robin Hood," "Shrek Forever After," "Toy Story 3," and since seemingly every other movie is at least now "converted" to 3-D, a whole lot more I'm surely overlooking here.

But you get my point. As soon as they started raising prices arbitrarily, the 3-D bug morphed from a trick into a cancer, and there's no way to stop it than just saying no, starting right now.

Whew. That's a whole lot of bile for a Tuesday morning, and I can't think of anything better to sweeten it up than this fantastic trailer for Jean Pierre Jeunet's "Micmacs." I thought the American release window for Jeunet's latest had already come and gone, but this is one case in which I'd be thrilled to be wrong. It indeed just played the SXSW festival, and gets another U.S. release on May 28, when I'll surely be there to see it. As you'll see from the trailer, "Micmacs" is about a band of misfits who join together to take on an arms manufacturer, and it definitely looks like its filled with plenty of Jeunet spirit. Enjoy, and have a perfectly passable Tuesday. Peace out.

The weird, often wonderful, world of "Avatar"

I don't really think its possible, but given the weather on the east coast this weekend, should we feel sorry for James Cameron? (I feel much more sorry for my poor friends in D.C. who got buried in snow - which I know from personal experience is pretty much a mini-apocalypse for the nation's capital.)

Thanks at least in part to the storms, his "Avatar" only took in $73 million domestic in its first weekend, finishing second for a December opening to Will Smith's "I am Legend," which opened to more than $77 million (you just don't mess with the Fresh Prince.) Cameron's movie did, however, take in a rather impressive $159 million overseas, so I suppose he just might eventually break even in a few weeks.

But, much more importantly, is the movie any good? The short answer: Yes, often magically so. It's also hokey, bloated and all the other things you might have feared going in, but if you give into it, he really has managed to make a genuine sci-fi epic the likes of which we haven't seen on the big screen for many years (I've heard "Star Wars" mentioned so many times this week that it makes me sick, so you won't hear it again from me.)

What he hasn't done is "revolutionize moviemaking," or at least I hope not, because as much as I liked visiting his world of Pandora, I really hope there isn't even more of a rush to embrace 3-D. (Yes, I'm well aware that there's nothing I can do to stop it, much as I might try.) He really needs to take some lessons from W. in the expectations game, because if he could just keep his big mouth shut for a bit, people would find that what he's actually crafted is a flick that would have been much more comfortable in the '80s, in spite of all its technological prowess.

That's not entirely an insult, because the often-cheesy dialogue fits the very familiar story just fine, but, as Nell Minow also pointed out, with all the brains behind this, couldn't they come up with a better name for the coveted mineral the humans are hunting for than "unobtainium"? Sheesh.

But of course, we don't go to a James Cameron movie for the story, and he doesn't waste much time at all on the setup. I was, in fact, more than a little confused at first about how or why exactly our hero, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is taking over the Na'vi avatar inhabited by his late brother. The Na'vi, as I'm sure you know by now even if you haven't seen this, look like extremely fit blue horsecats, which would make Napoleon Dynamite smile but can be seriously distracting from the world that Cameron has created here.

And what a world it is. Once the action moves to Pandora, a planet prized by we humans for the aforementioned mineral and because - as is apparently the assumption for any movie set 100 years in the future or so - we've laid waste to our own living space. Jake infiltrates the Na'vi in his avatar for the mining company but his allegiances start to shift to the natives, thanks in large part to his love for one Na'vi in particular, Neytiri, played by Zoe Saldana. And, given Cameron's infatuation with the scantily clad Na'vi form, who can blame him, even if they are blue horsecats?

It's when Jake and Neytiri start to explore Cameron's brave new world that the movie finally takes off, and it really is amazing to behold. The realm of Pandora is essentially a rain forest at its roots, but Cameron has filled it with all kinds of wonders, from flying mountains to glowing trees, and we (or at least I) feel the thrill of discovery along with the two of them.

In fact, I know this is a reach, but in this middle stretch it often feels almost like a Terrence Malick movie - granted, a Terrence Malick movie on some seriously psychedelic drugs and with the volume turned up to 11. I'm still a 3-D skeptic, but for the first time since Henry Selick's "Coraline" I didn't mind wearing a second set of glasses just to watch this, and after a while I was so sucked in that I often forgot I was wearing them.

But, of course, we dastardly humans are there to ruin it all, and Cameron has found the perfect weapon of mass destruction in Stephen Lang. He hams it up throughout as Col. Quaritch, the muscle behind the hunt for "unobtainium" (just typing that makes me still giggle), and certainly brings to mind another Cameron hero who somehow managed to become the governor of California (it certainly helps that, in the inevitable battle royale, he inhabits a giant robot suit a la a Terminator.)

With a nifty transition involving Jake's mentor with the company, played with resolve and empathy by Sigourney Weaver, Cameron indeed shifts to unleash as much energy as he put into creating this beautiful place in an attempt to destroy it, which takes up most of the last 45 minutes or so. And the battle itself is electrifying. It's actually a good thing you have the 3-D glasses on at this point, which kind of keeps your head captive, because if it were to escape for just a second and think too much you might not be able to give in to just how ridiculously fun it is to watch blue horsecats on what appear to be neon pterodactyls and armed only with bows and arrows take on a force with considerably more firepower.

We know who's going to win this battle, but Cameron has imbued the movie with enough of his mythology in a surprisingly brisk two hours and 40 minutes or so that we actually care about the outcome. I'm still not sold on Sam Worthington as an actor, even in purely buttery popcorn fare like this, but that's not enough to take away from what Cameron has accomplished here.

Has he revolutionized moviemaking? Nah, but for $500 million or so he did at least manage to craft an extremely fun movie and just the sweetest kind of eye candy.

And that's about all I have to say about that. If you've seen "Avatar" and want to disagree with me, please feel free, and have a perfectly pleasant Monday. Peace out.

Yes, "Chuck" will be back, this time for real

Actually, the only other news I could find out there that's, well, not better, but at least insane, is that the "Jackass" crew may be back again in 2010 ... and this time in 3-D.

So far, Henry Selick's "Coraline" is the only flick that I thought really took true advantage of the 3-D technology as more than a gimmick to retain movie viewers, which it almost always is to me. Despite how much it annoys me by muddying all the colors of what should be very vibrant animated movies ("Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs," by the way, looks fantastic in glorious 2-D), I can guarantee I'll at least pop down the scratch for a matinee to watch Steve-O and Johnny Knoxville come flying at me in excruciating pain, which is indeed listed on Paramount's 2010 slate, though so far with no release date.

Beyond that here today, it's all about "Chuck," about which there's some actual good news this morning rather than the rumors that have been slowly floating out to tantalize fans like me.

After teasing us with word of a possible return by Halloween (which was, obviously, just a dastardly lie), the official word now is that the bumbling spy-in-the-making and his new Intersect 2.0 skills will return with a two-hour premiere from 9-11 p.m. Sunday, Jan. 10, and then a third episode at its regular time slot at 8 p.m. the next night. Three hours of "Chuck" in two days? Bring it on!

The only thing that could possibly worry me about all this is that the third season is already swollen with guest stars (Angie Harmon, Brandon Routh, Robert Patrick Armand Assante and even Vinnie Jones have already been announced) that may just distract from the overall fun. With NBC having already upped the season 3 order from 13 episodes to 19, however, I'd say it's all good.

As you can see from the preview below - which includes a scene from the new season - the Buy More will make a return, as well as at least Jeffster and Morgan. Enjoy, and have a great weekend. Peace out.

Richard Pryor to be played by ... a Wayans brother?

I really enjoy reading about all this stuff, even more than I do writing about it when I first wake up in the morning, because very often you just get one of those wtf moments that make me start the day with a smile.

To first give all credit where its due, this info comes directly from Hitfix, and I see no reason to take it as anything but fact.

In February, it was announced that "Dreamgirls" director Bill Condon was going to make a biopic about Richard Pryor (rather imaginatively titled "Richard Pryor"), and Eddie Murphy was going to be the star. Fair enough all that, but apparently not so.

Now comes word that though Condon is still on board, Marlon Wayans will be stepping in to play Pryor, and oddly I see this a potentially really good move.

Don't get me wrong. I can't criticize anything the Wayans brothers have generated as a unit in recent years because I haven't bothered to see anything they were all involved in since the first "Scary Movie," but I did of course way back when see "I'm Gonna Git You Sucka." And I did see and quite enjoy the Marlon variety of the Wayans in both "Requiem for a Dream" and "Ladykillers" (yes, "Ladykillers," and I like that movie quite a bit.)

Mostly, though I'm sure Murphy would have loved to do this, this move takes out all that ego and places a potentially very funny guy (as long as he and his brothers aren't behind the camera) in the role of the best comedian (except for maybe Bill Hicks) of all time.

Well, more than enough about that, really, but apropos of just about nothing, here's Wayans in a very funny - and extremely foul - clip from "Ladykillers" to get your Wednesday started right.



Selick out at Laika

Anyone who saw and enjoyed "Coraline" as much as I did (and since it made $75 million domestic, there must be a few of you out there) knows that this is a pretty dark day for Laika, the studio that generated it.

Henry Selick, the "Coraline" director and a master of stop-motion animation, is leaving his post as "supervising director for feature film development" at the studio. Rather ironically, I guess, despite that title, he's leaving because his contract is up and he still didn't have any feature film in sight to direct.

Laika is set to announce its next feature within the month, but here's hoping that Selick finds a new home where his talents can be put to their proper use very soon.

Lauren Graham back on TV?

As a big fan of "Gilmore Girls" (yes, really), I have to say it's just been depressing to see Lauren Graham not be able to find any really good roles - on the big screen or small - since that show ended. Now, however, it seems she's found something that will at least probably last a few years.

Graham is about to step in for Maura Tierney in NBC's upcoming drama series "Parenthood," based at least loosely on the movie of the same name that I just couldn't stand. Tierney had to drop out because she is battling breast cancer.

And why would the TV show be any better than the rather wretched movie? Well, first of all, it was created by "Friday Night Lights" showrunner Jason Katims, and already has a pretty strong cast, including Peter Krause and Craig T. Nelson (as an aside, I just finished watching "Sports Night," and that show was so good I'm surprised it even managed to last two years.)

The show, if it actually makes it in on the air, is set to debut as a midseason replacement.

Another "Vacation"?

As sequels go, I think this one just might work because of the sheer craziness of it. According to The Hollywood Reporter, it seems that "Wedding Crashers" director David Dobkin is considering producing and directing (yet another) sequel of sorts to "National Lampoon's Vacation."

Yes, there have already been umpteen spinoffs (I think the only one I've seen was "European Vacation"), but this would instead be a "reboot" (what an awful word), with Rusty now taking his own kids on a similar trip to the original, perhaps to Wally World again for all I know.

Now, National Lampoon is no longer involved (but when's the last time they generated anything genuinely funny?) and no word yet if any of the original cast would be either, but just thinking of that goofy movie again made me smile, so here's hoping something seriously funny comes out of all this.

And speaking of seriously funny, "South Park" is finally back on the air again tonight for what I have to assume will be another seven-episode stretch. Here's the description of tonight's episode from Comedy Central:

"The boys bring in professional ghost hunters to investigate evidence of paranormal activity in the Broflovski house. Powerful forces are tormenting Ike. He’s freaked out and the stress could kill him. Kyle and the boys are doing everything they can to save him, but the poltergeists won’t leave Ike alone."

What that doesn't tell you is that the episode is titled "Dead Celebrities," and as you can see from the very brief clip below, they take their inspiration from a rather obvious source. Enjoy, and have a none-too-bothersome Wednesday. Peace out.

My problem with 3-D, and a fantastic film opportunity in Macon

Just in case you thought there might be some end in sight to the 3-D wave of animation (and eventually, I fear, nearly everything else), there was an odd story this morning that shows just how much it's taken over just about the entire world.

It seems that even Frenchies like Patrice Leconte, director of one of my favorite froggy mind-benders in "The Man on the Train" and many other flicks, is getting into the 3-D animated game. Granted, he's making something called "Le Magasin des Suicides" (literally, "The Suicide Store"), a "dark comedy" about a family-owned shop that sells suicide tools to a depressed and suicidal world.

At least the story sounds interesting enough, but as much as I've tried, I just can't get into 3-D animation as anything more so far than a gimmick. I thought Pixar's "Up" would be the movie that finally gets me on board, but I think I can now officially count myself as someone who just doesn't believe the hype.

Now, there was one movie so far that I thought really made fantastic use of the technology, Henry Selick's "Coraline," but that's really it. Every other time I've seen a 3-D movie (and there's been at least "Up," "Monsters Vs. Aliens" and "Nightmare Before Christmas"), the supposed thrill just left me cold, and I think I've finally figured out (after discussing it with my fellow cubicle slave Randy Waters) why.

It's those glasses, which to me just make the whole screen muddy. A big part of the thrill in animated movies for me is to see the vibrant colors used to create something as beautiful as a painting. Think back to when Remy the rat first beheld the cityscape of Paris in "Ratatouille" or when Kiki was flying over Mediterranean Europe in Hayao Miyazaki's "Kiki's Delivery Service." I just can't imagine those unforgettable images would be as magical if they had been run through the 3-D machine.

And beyond the muddiness of the images, I just feel like it removes me from the experience by a level or two, putting this filter between me and the screen that just creates a remoteness that limits my engagement with the movie.

Now, even if I am an increasingly old curmudgeon about this and other things (I listened to the Black Eyed Peas' "Boom Boom Pow" the other day to see if I could get into it, but I can't ... I love hip-hop and always will [listening to Dead Prez right now], but I just can't stand that vodaphone crap, another gimmick that just distorts the beauty that is rap music), I am sane enough to realize there's really nothing I can do about it. I was tempted to go back and watch "Up" in 2-D to see if I would enjoy it more, but decided to save my money instead.

But before I go any further on in that longer-than-expected tangent, this was supposed to be a plug for the Macon Film Guild, which is showing what I expect to be a truly great flick this Sunday in "Sugar."

It's been forever since I've seen a great baseball flick in a movie theater, so I was hoping that this one from Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck would get a proper run, but it never materialized. I was bit underwhelmed by "Half Nelson," mostly because by the time I finally managed to see it the flick had been hyped so much that I was just expecting more, I guess.

With "Sugar," however, you can count me as thoroughly amped. The flick tells the story of Miguel "Sugar" Santos, a Dominican teenager who gets scouted as a pitcher and at 19 enters the U.S. minor league system with hopes of hitting it big.

The Macon Film Guild, which consistently shows quality flicks that should find more of an audience, is showing this one at 2, 4:30 and 7:30 p.m. Sunday at the Douglass Theatre in Macon, so if you're anywhere in the Middle Georgia area, come out and check it out, because it deserves a big crowd. If you're at the 2 p.m. show, I'll see you there.

And I'll leave you today with the first trailer I've seen for Martin Scorsese's next flick, "Shutter Island," which looks, thankfully, like it will be even crazier than I was hoping. Based on a Dennis Lehane novel, it of course stars Leonardo DiCaprio as a U.S. marshall who uncovers a nasty secret at a hospital for the criminally insane. It really looks like Scorsese making a B-movie, and almost a horror flick, and I can't possibly see anything wrong with that. Peace out.

Two great movie tidbits and my belated thoughts on "Chuck"

Before I get into my thoughts about the present and possible future of "Chuck," there's some great news out there today about easily two of my favorite people in film.

First and most importantly, according to the always informative Blackfilm.com, director Kasi Lemmons is solidly at work on an adaptation of the Langston Hughes gospel musical "Black Nativity," which as the title makes clear is a retelling of the nativity story with an all-black cast and featuring traditional carols sung in gospel style. Doesn't sound much like my kind of thing at all, but Ms. Lemmons has yet to steer me wrong, so I'm in (if you somehow haven't seen her first flick, "Eve's Bayou," rent it immediately.)

Fox Searchlight is apparently fasttracking this for, appropriately enough, a possible Christmas release this year.

And for fans of "short, fat, sweaty" people everywhere, there's big news about Ricky Gervais. Unbeknownst to me, he's apparently penned a series of children's books titled "Flanimals," and now they're being turned into a 3-D animated feature.

Now, I fully realize I have no power to stop the 3-D express, but I have to say my experiences with it so far have been mixed at best. It brought nothing at all to Henry Selick's "The Nightmare Before Christmas," and I also thought it was thoroughly wasted on "Monsters Vs. Aliens" (though, to be fair, I was so bored by that one that even fantastic 3-D effects wouldn't have been enough to suck me back in.) On the other hand, I thought it was mesmerizing with Selick's "Coraline," easily one of my favorite flicks so far of 2009, and I can't wait to see what Pixar does with the technology for "Up."

But getting back to the Gervais flick, it unfortunately won't be penned by Gervais himself, but instead by "The Simpsons" scribe Matt Selman ("The Simpsons" hasn't been funny for many years now, so that can't be a good sign.) The book series, according to Variety, is about "a world inhabited by 50 species of creatures so ugly and misshapen they become cute and endearing." And Gervais, who will voice a "pudgy, perspiring, purple creature," described the project with his signature self-deprecation.

"It will be great to play a short, fat, sweaty loser for a change," Gervais said. "A real stretch."

To that I can only say bring it on, but getting to easily the most important matter of the week (since I can't think of anything even remotely enlightening to say about the fact that people now have something actually called "pig flu"), a belated assessment of the season two finale (and hopefully not series finale!) of "Chuck." In a word, to quote one of our heroes, it was simply "awesome."

The "game-changing" punch that creator Josh Schwartz promised was certainly that, but I have to admit it wasn't what I was expecting. I was hoping that Chuck would have bitten on Gen. Beckman's offer early in the finale and become a real spy (she said analyst, but we knew he wouldn't simply be that) and he and Sarah could travel the world as partners and just kick all kinds of ass.

What Schwartz and co. came up with instead, however, promises to be at least as much fun for next season, which damn well better come to fruition. Chuck as a Kung Fu badass, as I at first understood it, would have been fun enough, but according to Schwartz in this interview with TV guide.com, the new and improved intersect in his head could lead to a whole new level of awesome:

TVGuide.com: These new flashes that give Chuck an ability, how long will each one last? Like, could he "forget" kung fu in the middle of a fight?
Schwartz: What I will say is that people who are concerned that these new powers will somehow change the tone of the show or of our guy, don't be. There is a plan in place, and the tone of the show and Chuck's underdog quality will remain intact.

TVGuide.com: Will he flash on, like, a foreign language one week? And then safe cracking skills the next? That kind of a thing?
Schwartz: There are a lot of options, a lot of opportunities for us to go down different paths.

That indeed just sounds radically cool. And I know there should be a lot more important things in life, and even in mine there certainly are, but I haven't gotten attached to a TV show so quickly in a very, very long time. I was admittedly a latecomer, only jumping on the ship early in season two at the urging of several of my entertainment-savvy co-workers, but now it's easily my favorite show that's still running original shows this year (which gives me an out to leave room for the only current shows I like more than "Chuck," coincidentally enough another little NBC offering known as "Friday Night Lights" and, of course, AMC's "Mad Men.")

But what about the most important question hovering around "Chuck"? I tried to find some ratings numbers for the finale or, even more importantly, info on when NBC might make up its mind about next season, but couldn't find anything solid. Here's what Schwartz had to say in the TV Guide interview, the rest of which you can read here:

TVGuide.com: But what is NBC thinking these days?
Schwartz: Well, NBC has always really loved the show. They have been very supportive of the show, and they really do love and support the show. It's not lost on them, the fan reaction, the critical support, and this grassroots movement that's taken hold. All of that is very significant in indicating momentum for the show, growth for the show, and a really loyal and fervent fan base for the show.

TVGuide.com: So you feel like it's a genuinely difficult decision NBC is facing?
Schwartz: They have a very tight schedule this year, so...

Really not much to go on there at all, so I guess we'll just have to wait. At the urging of fellow "Chuck" devotee Stephanie Hartley I did buy a footlong Subway sub recently, though I'm not sure what good that did beyond giving me a rather satisfying supper.

My good friend Kaori Sekine-Pettite sent me a link via Facebook (which I'm somehow on, though I still don't even have a cell phone) that lets you make your own Buy More Nerd Herd badge, which I of course just couldn't resist. I certainly hope Chuck, Casey and even Morgan somehow end up working there next year, and in spirit I can too. If you want to enjoy this perfectly blissful little time-waster, click here, and keep hope very much alive for the future of "Chuck." Peace out.

Enter the enchanting world of "Coraline"

Before seeing Henry Selick's rather amazing "Coraline," I was convinced that 3-D, be it in movies or television, was simply a gimmick to catch our extremely short attention spans for a few seconds. Now, however, at least when it comes to animation, you can count me as a true believer.

Actually, I was caught up in the magic of it even before the movie started, when for the first time I got to see the trailer for Pixar's next flick, "Up," for the first time in 3-D. It looks amazing, and I'm betting it will easily be one of this summer's best movies.

As for "Coraline" itself, this was only the second time I had bothered to don those goofy glasses (the first, oddly enough, being for another flick associated with Selick, the re-release of "The Nightmare Before Christmas"), and this was the first time that the 3-D effect felt perfectly organic to the story and only added to the world it was painstakingly used to create.

But as amazing as the stop motion animation/puppetry was, it all would have felt more than a little empty if it weren't for the strength of the story, adapted by Selick from the children's novella by Neil Gaiman with healthy doses of "Alice's Adventures In Wonderland," "The Wizard of Oz" and "Pan's Labyrinth" thrown in as inspiration.

Like Ophelia in Guillermo Del Toro's flick, our heroine Coraline constructs an elaborate fantasy world to escape the reality of her surroundings, here simply an old house in the middle of nowhere rather than the Spanish Civil War. In exploring her new abode, Coraline discovers a small door that's been painted over and, once opened, reveals in reality only another layer of bricks.

It's once she drifts off to sleep, however, that magical mice lead her through the door to an alternate universe in which she encounters an "other mother" and "other father" who, as opposed to her benign but somewhat neglectful real folks, offer her all the thrills that her own mind can conjure, plus some creepy creations that make this about as close as you can come to a horror movie for children (and not-yet-grown-up adults like me.)

I don't want to reveal any more than that about the story, but it's in this alternative universe that Selick's stable of animators/puppeteers get to really shine, most magically in Mr. Bobinsky's (voiced by Ian McShane) circus of bouncing mice (which you have to see to believe), but also in a pack of Scottie dogs who turn into bats at Coraline's command. Perhaps the most inane thing I've read in the past year was a debate at Aint It Cool News over whether these rather amazing mice were a feat of animation or simply CGI gimmickry; if you can't simply sit back and behold the visual feast that unfolds in front of you, I have to wonder why you go to the movies in the first place.

Selick/Gaiman's tale starts to unravel a bit as Coraline's dream world becomes more of a nightmare, but even here it's kept afloat as the vision of our young heroine, voiced with surprising spirit by Dakota Fanning (who, frankly, until she becomes a young adult instead of a kid trying desperately to be one, is better heard but not seen in my book, hence I won't be going to see her play an alcoholic in "Push" this weekend.) I loved watching her use the everyday objects around her to construct her elaborate fantasy world and the fact that as impudent as young Coraline can often be, the single thing that appears to irk her the most is that people in the real world too often address her as "Caroline."

In case you can't tell by now, I rather unconditionally loved this flick, and it was only after taking off those goofy glasses and returning to my own reality that I began to wonder just who this movie was intended for. Enchanting enough for kids but perhaps a tad too scary, it's probably aimed mostly at grown-up geeks like me, and I'm not sure that's enough of an audience to make this anything approaching a box-office winner.

In fact, a quick visit to Box Office Mojo revealed that on Friday it took in a respectable-but-not-great haul of about $4.5 million, far behind the $10.5 million or so of "He's Just Not That Into You" but thankfully a full million ahead of Steve Martin's latest attempt to crap all over the career of Peter Sellers.

My advice is simply that if you like going to the movies to escape for a little while and be thoroughly enchanted by a movie that's as visually stunning as it is simply entertaining, go see "Coraline," and if you can, certainly see it in 3-D. Peace out.

An "Arrested Development" movie? Signed, sealed but not yet delivered

I suppose it's my duty to mention something about "Twilight," which I will bother to see Saturday afternoon, so here goes.

I was watching "Rocket Science" last night on the DVR, which is easily one of the most charming movies of 2007. My brother and I first saw it in Minneapolis, and if you haven't, just go ahead and rent this quirky teen anti-romance (I'm not really selling it very well, but trust me.)

I tell you all that to tell you this: Anna Kendrick, who starred in "Rocket Science" and apparently has the most microscopic of parts in "Twilight," has somehow managed to snag the female lead in Jason Reitman's next movie, "Up in the Air." It stars George Clooney as a "career transition counselor" - essentially one of the Bobs in "Office Space" - whose main goal in life seems to be to accumulate 1 million frequent flier miles. Not sure how Ms. Kendrick factors into all this, but congrats all the same.

But the real order of business here today is that murky realm where TV and film collide, and how Hollywood works so hard to tease the fans of dead shows with a cinematic afterlife. I had decided to swear off reporting on each slim ray of hope that there would ever be an "Arrested Development" movie, but after a few months or so going strong, today's news just makes me have to surrender to the urge.

In the latest development - and if I understand this the most solid one so far - series creator Mitch Hurwitz and backer Ron Howard have apparently signed some kind of deal for it with Imagine and Fox Searchlight. Hurwitz is apparently on board to write and direct the feature (again, if it ever happens), and Howard will be around to help out, and I assume narrate.

The actors (some of whom I'm sure could sorely use the work) have been teasing that this would happen ever since the show got canceled. I'd imagine even big movie star Michael Cera would come back to play George Michael Bluth again (and since I now mention "Chuck" every day, Tony Hale - whose parents reportedly live somewhere very near to or even in my town of Macon, Ga. - has been very funny as the new assistant manager of the Buy More.) Please, make this happen already!

Is "Pushing Daisies," well, pushing daisies?

It brings me no joy whatsoever to share this next bit of news.

The truly dismal facts are these: ABC has opted not to pick up three shows - "Dirty Sexy Money", "Eli Stone" and the only one of these I care about at all, "Pushing Daisies" - for a full season.

What does that mean for "Pushing Daisies" fans? Well, if I have this right, it means that after last Wednesday's "Oh, Oh, Oh, It's Magic," we have only seven more episodes left of TV's only primetime fairy tale for adults.

Given the rather poor ratings for season 2 so far I suppose you can't really blame ABC, but I'm gonna do it anyway. How in the world did they expect a show this odd - with an admittedly small but devoted following - to survive after only putting out nine episodes before the strike intervened and then none again until this October? Was there anything so compelling on ABC this summer that they couldn't have taken nine hours out of their primetime schedule to reintroduce viewers to this magical tale?

OK, that's enough from me on that, but here's what series creator Bryan Fuller had to say to the Hollywood Reporter's James Hibberd:

"I can't help but feel immense pride when it comes to 'Pushing Daisies.' I'm grateful TO everyone and FOR everyone who brought the show to life and for the very loyal audience that embraced us. If we are indeed dead on ABC, we now have to convince DC Comics to let us tell the rest of the season's story lines out in comic book form and convince Warner Bros. features to let 'Pushing Daisies' live again as a movie."

I'd imagine that last bit is even more of a pipe dream than an "Arrested Development" flick, but I'll at least spring for the comic book. Just sad, sad news all around.

In the only bit of good news from ABC, however, "Scrubs" is about to come back to life, and I can only say welcome back. The hospital comedy returns beginning Tuesday, Jan. 6, at 9 p.m., in the time slot it started with way back before being moved all around (and pre-empted all the time) by NBC. We'll get two weeks of back-to-back episodes before it settles in for its regular half-hour run.

The full "Coraline" trailer

One of the more tedious of my weekly newspaper duties is to figure out what's playing at our three Middle Georgia movie theaters and compile capsule reviews from the wire. I say tedious, but I do enjoy seeing which movies manage to stick around way longer than what should be their shelf life.

The most recent example was the magical "The Nightmare Before Christmas," which was re-released in 3-D (which did very little to enhance it) just before Halloween and somehow managed to stick around in one of our theaters until this week. Very odd.

And I tell you all that to tell you this: Here's the full trailer for "Coraline," a coming collaboration between writer Neil Gaiman and animation director Henry Selick (the director of "Nightmare Before Christmas.") As you'll see, it's the story of a young girl who discovers a parallel universe in the crawlspace of her dingy apartment, and it's one of the movies I'm really looking forward to for 2009. Enjoy, and if you happen to see "Twilight" before I do, please feel free to share your thoughts.

To 3D or not to 3D?

For most of the world, the movie question for this weekend was probably about whether to watch the pretty teens of "High School Musical 3" or the bloodfest of "Saw V" (or perhaps in a truly twisted double feature, both), but for me it was whether or not to finally to take the plunge into 3D for a return to the great "Nightmare Before Christmas."

Since it was being applied to a movie I love, I decided to bite on Hollywood's latest gimmick. The movie itself has stood the test of time very well, with Danny Elfman's songs and Henry Selick's stop-motion animation as magical as ever (though not enough to make me forgive Mr. Elfman for those horrendous Oompa-Loompa songs he crafted for Tim Burton's simply awful "Willy Wonka" remake.) As for the technology, however, I think from now I'm gonna have to just say no.

Did it bring anything positive to the movie-viewing experience? My first impulse was to say no, but in fairness that magical moment when it starts to snow over Halloweentown was indeed fairly cool in 3D, with the snow flakes seeming to fall on top of you. That wasn't nearly enough, however, to make up for what it did to the rest of the movie.

The first problem is that those goofy glasses, which I was happy to find fit comfortably over my actual specs, managed to blur the often stark colors of Selick's dreamscape into a rather unpleasant gray. Not very cool at all.

Secondly, the 3D technology just seemed horribly out of place with the stop-motion style, which is beautiful in its sheer primitiveness. I tend to frown on most ultramodern animation anyway. As much as I loved Gil Kenan's "Monster House," the humans in that one just looked like space aliens (and in none of the best ways), and the effect was even worse with Jerry Seinfeld's "Bee Movie." Call me old-fashioned, but I know what I like.

The trailers offered a peak at what should be my next chance to choose between 3D and traditional animation, and ironically enough it was for another Henry Selick movie (huzzah!). Coming early next year will be "Coraline," directed by Mr. Selick in the stop-motion style from the novella by Neil Gaiman about a young girl who finds all kinds of surprises when she explores the apartment next door.

I kept the funky 3D glasses I paid $2 for, but assuming that "Coraline" will be released in both formats, I'll take the traditional style, as you can with the trailer below. Peace out.