Passing On 'Precious'

I'm not going to see "Precious."

Back in the '90s, I knew several people who had read (or attempted to read) "Push," the novel "Precious" is based on. To be fair, I'm one of those people who can't stomach stories, real or imagined, about child abuse. Reviews and word of mouth convinced me that I was the wrong audience for a story about a morbidly obese girl who is repeatedly raped by her father, impregnated with his children, and subjected to depraved acts at her mother's hand. It's not that I didn't know those things happened (I was a newspaper reporter, after all), but I had zero desire to be immersed in that world in my down time.

The Washington Post's Courtland Milloy said it better than I can, but I just don't see the value in watching this hellish story play out on the big screen. I'm all for tackling hard truths through art, but I have a hard time believing that "Precious" will do anything to make a difference in the lives of real-life abuse victims. Plus, there's something deeply grating about the idea of a privileged film festival audience seeing this movie and gasping, "How powerful! I had no idea this world of ghetto tragedy existed!"

There's a valid argument that "Precious" represents a thoughtful alternative to movies about African-American men dressed in drag and adaptations of ham-fisted stage plays. (Irony! Tyler Perry is one of the big names promoting "Precious.") But are those my only choices if I want to see a movie with more than two black people in it?

Sorry, Oprah. I can't go down this road with you.

Giving Away The Skim Milk For Free

Done well, a film trailer can be almost as satisfying as full-length film. Ideally, it captures your attention while giving away just enough information to leave you wanting more. In the case of a flick like "Watchmen," the trailer was apparently far better than the movie it was attached to.

My issues with the average romantic comedy have been well documented here, but I'm always surprised by how bad the trailers are. You'd think the studios would be at least savvy enough to not give the entire plot away. The first time I noticed this was when the trailer for "No Reservations" — the Catherine Zeta-Jones/Aaron Eckhart chefs-in-love movie — aired in 2007. She's a hard-charging chef caring for her dead sister's adorable daughter! He's the fun-loving, hot new guy in the kitchen! Their styles clash, but will he be the one who shows her how to embrace life — and love? Gee, do you think? Unless you're a big fan of either actor, why would you pay 8 bucks or more to see it when the trailer tells you exactly what's going to happen?

Not to harp on Eckhart, who really is an appealing actor, but he's starring in another movie ("Love Happens") that's guilty of giving away most of its milk for free via trailer. He's a successful self-help expert in pain. Enter the beautiful florist who has sworn off men. Can these two wounded souls find love again ... together? For real?

In the same week, I saw the trailer for "All About Steve," in which Sandra Bullock's wacky, unlucky-in-love character stalks a TV cameraman played by Bradley Cooper. OK. I can see stalking Bradley Cooper, and Thomas Haden Church automatically elevates any movie. But I hate it when a trailer indicates that a morally ambiguous character is going to redeem him/herself, and is inspired to do so because of some potential love interest who "isn't like anyone I've ever met." No. Also, major points off for the use of Sara Bareilles "Love Song," which is just insulting.

Maybe the real problem is my suspicion that neither of these movies are going to be very good. Sure, there were some expected moments in the "Sex and the City" movie (Did anyone doubt that Carrie and Big would get back together?), but the journey was satisfying and too complex to be reduced to a two-minute trailer. Give me something to look forward to.

Thanks For The Memories, John

For all the memorable quotes and scenes in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off," one of my favorite parts of the movie is the wordless montage at the Art Institute of Chicago. The main trio takes in the paintings, holds hands with a group of kids on a field trip, and sweethearts Ferris and Sloane share a tender kiss. It's just a sweet and magical moment, the kind that director John Hughes executed so well in the 1980s. I remember seeing that movie and thinking it must have been made by someone who knew that, underneath the snark and assholery, teenagers were human beings. (OK, I was 16, so I was mostly thinking, "Matthew Broderick is so cute!" But you know what I mean.)

Hughes' teen-themed movies could be uneven, and not all of them aged as well as "Ferris Bueller's Day Off." But he almost always gave you The Moment, the one that made up for Judd Nelson's scenery chewing or the wrongness of Long Duk Dong. I am also grateful for his hand in making a star out of Molly Ringwald, who helped broaden the teen cinema standard of pretty. She was not a typical Breck girl, and some of us really appreciated that.

One of these days when my kids are older, we'll "Pretty in Pink" together, and they'll laugh at the clothes, roll their eyes at some of the plot points and wonder why Andie is so hung up on Blane (Because he's played by Andrew McCarthy! Hello?). But I also bet that, deep down, they'll kind of dig it.

In Praise Of Love Stories That Don't Insult The Audience

I hope that new movie starring Katherine Heigl and Gerard Butler fails spectacularly. I want it to land in theaters with a thud, and for that thud to echo in the silence. I want the echo to reverberate all the way to the Hollywood offices of the people who green-lit another generic, candy-coated romantic comedy starring two gorgeous actors masquerading as regular people.

I don't have anything against Heigl and Butler, but for God's sake. The trailer for "The Ugly Truth" all but says, "Hey, women! You'll go see this because it's about romance and Gerard Butler may be shirtless at some point."

A romantic movie I'm much (much) more hopeful about is "Adam," the story of a woman (Rose Byrne) who falls for a man (Hugh Dancy) with Aspbergers Syndrome. Maybe "Adam" will turn out to be one of those too-quirky-for-its-own-good flicks, but the trailer is completely charming. Dancy doesn't appear to be playing his character as over-the-top odd, and at one point he says, "I'm not Forrest Gump, you know."

My interest in this movie is somewhat personal: My 9-year-old son is somewhere at the so-called mild end of the autism spectrum, and I've often wondered how he will navigate romantic relationships once he grows up. Like Dancy's Adam, he is personable and handsome, but he doesn't always grasp the subtleties of social communication. I hate the idea of that making life harder for him, but he's come a long way — and he's hardly alone. I'm sure there are plenty of adults on the spectrum who found love (all relationships are imperfect), and it's cool that a filmmaker is offering up that perspective.

"Adam" will probably make less in six months than "The Ugly Truth" will rake in opening weekend, but just knowing that it exists makes me feel better.

"The Hangover:" Maybe You've Heard Of It

The news about Michael Jackson had me in a weird mood, so I was grateful when my husband suggested we get a sitter and to to a movie. Naturally, we picked "The Hangover," a movie that my friends without children saw weeks ago. I knew it had to be good when my little sister raved about it, because if you looked up "jaded urban hipster" in the encyclopedia, her picture would be next to the term.

"The Hangover" is indeed a very funny and endlessly quotable film, though it strikes me as the kind people will either love or hate. As Bradley Cooper's character Phil might say, if you're gonna be all sensitive and shit, don't bother going. The road trip movie has been done to death, but "The Hangover" is totally aware of what a cliche the Vegas bachelor's weekend is - which is why it's so much fun to see things go terribly, outrageously wrong. Plus, I like comedies that are essentially about the dynamics of friendship and the roles we all play in our various tribes.

Cooper's role? Sexy beast. I'd seen him in a couple of earlier movies, but either I wasn't paying close enough attention or dude has skyrocketed up the hotness scale since then. And I love Zach Galifianakis' utter lack of vanity in playing Alan, a creepy misfit (and Jonas Brothers fan!) whose idea of bonding involves a blood pact. Ed Helms is a stitch as a henpecked dentist who, at one point, sings an impromptu ballad about Mike Tyson's pet tiger.

Of course, there's already talk of a sequel, but I hope a bigger budget and heightened expectations don't ruin the magic.

The Princess And The Peeved

So far this week, I’ve read two essays about America’s princess problem. They aren’t the first I’ve read on the subject, but this piece at The Root is the only one I’ve seen from an African-American perspective. Disney is debuting its first black princess, Tiana, via “The Princess and the Frog” later this year.

Like any good feminist raising a daughter, I’ve noticed that the princess culture, popularized by Disney, is absolutely everywhere — and it’s annoying. A few weeks ago, I took C. to a full-on princess birthday party and nearly went blind from the room full of sequins, sparkles and bright pink flotsam and jetsam. Nails were painted and dusted with glitter. Feather boas and satin slippers were donned. PrincessMania ’09 wouldn’t have been my choice for a party theme, but C. and the rest of the guests had fun.

Of course, I’d love for film studios to make more animated features about spirited girls who don’t wear ball gowns. It was a little depressing to see intrepid tomboy Dora the Explorer get the princess treatment a few years ago. And yet, I can’t work up a lot of outrage over the unveiling of the unveiling of another princess movie. As I’ve said previously, it’s a big deal for black girls to see themselves in the Disney tiara for once. Adults can have valid debates about vapid, man-dependent representations of women, but from where I’m sitting, black females haven’t exactly had the luxury of being stereotyped as fair damsels in distress (See: “Snow White”).

Besides, if you’re a 5-year-old girl, chances are that you like slightly tacky things that sparkle. This is the age when kids are acutely aware of gender differences, and some of them embrace the most obvious symbols of those differences — like princesses — with a vengeance. It would be nice if popular culture would help us out, but it’s up to parents to teach our children to get past that — and that it’s more important to be competent, confident and kind-hearted than to look like Sleeping Beauty (or Zac Efron). I’m much more worried about the bullshit yet to come, like when she turns 10 and hears her friends talking about going on diets and wearing whatever junior trollop gear the stores are peddling.

I’d prefer it if my daughter didn’t like pink quite so much, but that’s more my problem than hers. She loves her some Cinderella and Belle, sure, but she also swims and does gymnastics. She digs Wonder Woman and Supergirl — her costumes of choice the past two Halloweens — and she is far more self-assured than I was at twice her age. I seriously doubt she’s growing up with the idea that sitting around looking pretty adds up to a meaningful life.

My daughter has plenty of time to learn that being a princess is a fantasy that has little to do with being a woman. For now, I'm OK with her enjoying the sparkle.

How About We See The Movie First?

When we took the kids to see "Up" this weekend, we got a look at the trailer for Disney's upcoming animated film, "The Princess and the Frog." This is a big deal, because the movie features Disney's first African-American princess, Tiana. Having grown up in the Obama era, my children have no idea how significant this is. But I couldn't help sneaking glances at my 4-year-old daughter C. to gauge her reaction. She didn't say anything about the princess being "brown" — her term for herself — but she was clearly stoked. C. is all about the princesses.

Old Disney movies, products of their time, have had some howlingly racist moments in them. But the company isn't stupid, and it wants Tiana & Co. to make lots and lots of money. Think of the dollars to be made in merchandising alone. Disney needs black parents and their daughters to like "The Princess and the Frog."

That's why I'm a little annoyed that people are already branding the movie racially insensitive (See the New York Times story here.) Critics say it's wrong to set the fairy tale in New Orleans because of the Katrina tragedy and — Jesus Christ — that the prince is too light-skinned. Seriously.

True, the prince isn't easily racially identifiable, as he has straight hair and tan skin. But that makes sense, given that New Orleans has long been a multicultural city. And so what if he's not black? I hate to invoke Barack Obama (again), but given that our president has a white mom and an African dad, isn't a bit silly to demand that the prince look a certain way? To be perfectly honest, it's more important that Tiana herself has clearly African-American features and dark brown skin. The female beauty standard in this country still skews Caucasian, so when the person wearing the tiara doesn't, it matters. The powers at Disney (or at least their consultants) seem to understand this.

More to the point, I wish people would wait to see a movie before condemning it or accusing it of all kinds of offenses. Maybe the movie will make me cringe in horror when I see it, or maybe it'll just suck. Until then, I'm going to assume that Disney wants Tiana to take up residence in my home alongside High School Musical and Phineas and Ferb.

I Have A Bad Feeling About This

My husband claims that I'm a movie snob, but I really don't know enough about film to qualify for the label. While my tastes tend to skew Miracle 5, I will not turn down a well-executed blockbuster or mainstream movie. Plus, I own "Twilight," so that's a blow to my credibility right there.

However, there are certain kinds of movies that I almost always refuse to see. Anything overly earnest that beats me over the head with "uplift" is a non-starter. But even worse are movies whose promotional posters might as well say, "You're a chick, so you'll like this." I might make an exception if I really like the actress (Isla Fisher's "Confessions of a Shopaholic" comes to mind), but not even Ann Hathaway could persuade me to see "Bridal Wars." Kate Hudson was in it, and she seems to specialize in the kind of films I'm allergic to.

Which brings me to "My Life in Ruins," a rom-com starring Nia Vardalos of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" fame (Never saw it). My friend M. sent me a link to the trailer with the note, "I dare you not to throw up." Wow. It's like someone put "How Stella Got Her Groove Back," "Under the Tuscan Sun" and "Hope Floats" in a blender and added an extra helping of cliches. I knew it was headed downhill when Vardalos' wacky heroine revealed, "I came (to Greece) to reconnect with my soul. Find my mojo." For real?

By the time the trailer faded out to the strains of Natasha Bedingfield's "Pocket Full of Sunshine," I did feel a little queasy. But this movie will probably make gobs of money, so what do I know?

Why "Star Trek" Rocks

Not that the world needs another glowing "Star Trek" review, but the last time I saw this level of excitement about a movie was when "Watchmen" came out few months ago. And that's probably not a fair comparison because a) "Watchmen" isn't as widely recognizable as "Star Trek" and b) audience and critic reaction to "Watchmen" was mixed at best. So far, I've only talked to one person who disliked "Star Trek," and many people — sci fi geeks or not — plan to see it again when it hits the IMAX. People are even going to Burger King just to buy themed drinking glasses! (OK, maybe that's just me.)

Here are my thoughts (WITH SPOILERS) on what made the movie work so well.

1. The story: Sometimes, simple is best. There were no painfully long scenes focused on intergalactic diplomacy and trade federations. Instead, "Star Trek" offered classic redemption/revenge plotlines, witty dialogue and big, shiny things exploding. You know the CGI is good when it never occurs to you that CGI is being employed. And a major high-five for the element of surprise: Spock and Uhura? Didn't see that coming!

2. The supporting cast: Beyond Kirk and Spock, I don't know a whole lot about how the members of the Starship Enterprise are "supposed" to act. But I know a good supporting cast when I see one, and this is it. As Leonard "Bones" McCoy, Karl Urban is grumpy, put upon and very funny. Anton Yelchin is a cuddly, English-mangling Chekov. If there's a more fetching young actress than Zoe Saldana (Uhura), I've yet to see her. Casting Simon Pegg as Scotty was a stroke of genius, and even in a small role, John Cho as Sulu literally kicks ass.

3. Zachary Quinto: I'm running out of adjectives to describe how good Quinto is as the iconic Spock. This is no surprise to people who watched the first season of "Heroes," but I didn't expect him to so thoroughly own the part — even with the venerable Leonard Nimoy in the film. He's kind of a dick in the beginning — the smug prodigy who is never, ever wrong. And I really liked the idea that, as a half-human, Spock's unusual self-control is more of a choice than a biological given. That makes the moments when he's clearly struggling to remain logical much more interesting.

4. Chris Pine: I've never seen Pine in anything, so I had no expectations for his take on James Kirk. The reckless womanizer who doesn't play by the rules is a total cliche, but the likable Pine portrays Kirk with just the right balance of humor and bravado. He's a frat boy to root for, and he never takes the joke too far.

5. Little Spock going all Ron Artest on his tormentors: I don't know how they do it on Vulcan, but on Earth, talking about somebody's mama is asking for punch in the mouth. Played by Jacob Kogan, child Spock metes out some harsh punishment when a peer calls his human mother (played by Winona Ryder!) a whore. I mean, he beats that kid down, and totally without warning. This is the first hint of the rebooted character's inner conflict, and it's a doozy. Best line: "I trust you have prepared new insults for today."

6. Leonard Nimoy: His appearance as an alternate-reality Spock is great because ... just because. It's freakin' Leonard Nimoy. That's enough.

I Give Up

To my so-called friends who encouraged me to watch "Twilight:"

I hate all of you.

You sat back as I made joke after joke about the cheesy dialogue, swooning and sparkling ... and you waited. You knew that my smugness would be no match for Robert Pattinson's perfectly tousled hair and model's cheekbones. Even as I was spitting out my Diet Coke at some of the lines and special effects, it was too late. I was all, "Bwaha! This is so effing ridiculous." Days later, I was all, "Well, that Cullen character was kinda cute. Really cute. Hm. Actually, he is totally striking. What genius casting! I, um ... dammit!"

He's dreamy — OK? I know when I've been beaten.

But I will not, under any circumstances, read "New Moon."

I won't!

Late Observations: "Twilight"

I tried to finish the first "Twilight" book. I really did. But after the author reminded me for the 798th time of how gorgeous, perfect and Adonis-like vampire Edward Cullen was, something inside me broke. So I passed the book along to a friend's 10-year-old daughter, who has since devoured it and moved on to "New Moon." I'm always happy to support literacy.

I still find "Twilight" fascinating as a cultural phenomenon, which is why I watched the movie over the weekend. If I were a 13-year-old girl, I would be all over this. My walls would be plastered with pictures of adorable Robert Pattinson, and I'd be arguing over minor plot points with my fellow fangirls. That's because "Twilight" hits the bulls-eye of young teens girls' fantasies: that a beautiful, soulful and vaguely dangerous boy is obsessed with you, and only you, and that the two of you will co-exist in a bubble of melodrama and sexual tension ... without having sex.

Pattinson was a great pick for the role of Edward, one of the pasty/intense Cullen vampire kids who keep to themselves at Forks High School. As Bella, Kristen Stewart makes the character much more appealing than she is in the book. Of course, that may be because the movie doesn't allow for the nonstop newscrawl of Bella's internal dialogue. Stewart is part of a long tradition of "ordinary" female characters being played by very attractive actresses.

Like the book, the movie version of "Twilight" never really explains why Edward is so smitten with Bella, other than the unique scent of her blood. But the two actors do have good chemistry, which might explain why their off-set relationship is on the cover of all the gossip rags. And maybe I just noticed this because I'm old, but I thought it was neat that the supporting cast was so diverse. Black vampires? Who knew?! I remember when you could watch a teen film from start to finish and see nary a person of color. (And no, I'm not counting Long Duc Dong from "Sixteen Candles.")

Granted, I laughed out loud a few times, like when Edward informed Bella, "I don't have the strength to stay away from you anymore." The whole sparkling-in-the-sunlight business made me giggle, too, but I realize I'm not the target audience. (Or am I? There seem to be an awful lot of women my age buying the books and swooning over Edward. That's .. interesting?) I'm not hating, though. Overall, "Twilight" is a perfectly serviceable movie that's worth a Neflix rental. On with the sequel.

"Star Trek:" I'm Officially Excited

I hope no one takes away my geek card for saying this, but "Star Trek" never quite captured my imagination. While I appreciated its impact on the sci-fi genre and its progressive view of humanity, I never became a big fan of the TV series, films or books.

However, I am all kinds of stoked about the new "Star Trek" film, which opens May 8. The fast-paced, whiz-bang trailers are pretty much perfect for a blockbuster popcorn movie. And since I'm not wed to the source material, there isn't nearly as much at stake for me as for my Trekker friends. I get to just sit back and watch stuff blow up without fretting about departures from the canon. The buzz has been good-to-great, and the cast members are cute as buttons. I predict there will be sequels and the usual complaints from my 9-year-old about how "all the good movies are PG-13."

Between this and "X-Men Origins: Wolverine," the month of May is looking fantastic.

Pinocchio: Scared Straight

I hadn't seen Disney's "Pinocchio" in years, but I've never forgotten how much it freaked me out as a kid. Back then, I believed it was possible for toys to come to life and that they weren't always benevolent.

But I'm a sucker for the classics, so I bought the two-disc, 70th anniversary edition of "Pinocchio" and watched it with the family last night. I'm always astonished by how gorgeously animated those old Disney movies are, considering that they were done entirely by hand. For cinephiles, the new DVD is worth every penny.

However, "Pinocchio" ought to have the subtitle "Scared Straight," because it is one frightening movie. My children, having been raised in the don't-ever-talk-to-strangers era, were extremely frustrated with Pinocchio for letting Honest John chat him up and lure him to Stromboli's puppet theater. At one point, my son yelled at the TV, "Man, what is wrong with you?" I explained to him that Pinocchio wasn't all that bright, but he wasn't placated.

And what about the creepy bastard who rounds up "stupid little boys" and carts them off to "Pleasure Island?" The literal interpretation is horrifying enough ("I'm a donkey!"), but that subplot takes on a whole other meaning when you're watching it as an adult in 2009. I'd also forgotten that, after saving Gepetto from a raging whale, Pinocchio (temporarily) dies and is shown face-down in pool of water. Jesus. By the time the fairy showed up to turn him into a real boy, I was emotionally drained.

My friend M. pointed out that Disney is an expert at haunting people's dreams well into adulthood. There's that whole Bambi's-mom-dies scene, Cinderella getting locked in an attic, the eerily possessed sorcerer's brooms, Mufasa's death-by-trampling, and on and on and on. On the bright side, the temporary trauma might make a kid think twice about blowing off school or talking to cigar-smoking foxes. It's just a thought.

Movie Of The Week: "Wonder Woman"

While my friends were geeking out on "Watchmen," I decided to see the new "Wonder Woman" movie instead. Animated, direct-to-DVD movies don't get a lot of respect, and I'll admit that my expectations for this venture were pretty low. But "Wonder Woman" is well done and fun to watch. It's got intense action and humor, and it acknowledges the obvious — that Diana is a sexy character whose existence in "man's world" is a plot line unto itself. (More on that later.) I enjoyed it much more than last year's ambitious but draggy "JLA: The New Frontier," which couldn't quite capture the magic of the Darwyn Cooke comic series it was based on.

"Wonder Woman" establishes early that the Amazons of Themyscira are no joke. After their betrayal and enslavement courtesy of the skeevy Ares, Queen Hippolyta and her fellow Amazons stage a bloody, victorious uprising. With Ares imprisoned and the men banished, Princess Diana grows up in idyllic isolation — until cocky pilot (is there any other kind?) Steve Trevor crashes his plane on her island. Diana (voiced by Kerri Russell) is pretty cocky, too, and against her mother Hippolyta's wishes, she proves herself battle-worthy to venture to man's world to capture Ares after he escapes.

Diana might be new to man's world, but she's not stupid. When Steve (Nathan Fillion) tries (and tries and tries) to get her drunk on tequila shots, she tells him how pointless it is to try to out-drink an Amazon. She's openly scornful of Etta Candy, who flirts with Steve by pretending she can't move a table to retrieve a pen. "What's wrong with you?" Diana says, questioning why a perfectly healthy woman can't move a piece of furniture. She then lifts the desk with one hand.

The movie gets a lot of mileage out of Diana and Steve's flirty interaction, especially his tendency to say the wrong thing ("Let's get you some different clothes before I get arrested for solicitation.") But while he's not exactly Prince Charming, it's nice to see a nod to this aspect of Wonder Woman's character. As a Mighty God King essay points out, Wonder Woman's sexuality often has been muted in comics, as if D.C. fears that she'll "come across as a slut or something." Even Batman gets some action once in a while, but until Gail Simone's recent presentation of Wonder Woman's courtship of Nemesis, I can't remember the last time a writer acknowledged that Diana might want — let alone have — a grown-up relationship. Warriors need love, too.

I haven't had a chance to dive into all the DVD extras on the two-disc edition, but I'll definitely watch the main feature again. The Cheetah makes an appearance at the very end, which leads me to believe that Warner Brothers is at least considering a sequel. I hope so.

A Movie I AM Excited About

I didn't have particularly high hopes for the quality of the Wonder Woman animated movie, but it's getting very good reviews.

Entertainment Weekly: "On a geek-scale, I'd rate Wonder Woman a bit higher than this series' previous releases such as 'Superman Doomsday' and 'Justice League: The New Frontier.' "

Wired: "Directed with skill by Laura Montgomery and starring Keri Russell as the voice of bad-ass Princess Diana, Wonder Woman leans heavily on dizzying action and sexual tension to bridge the gaps between the character's various incarnations over the past seven decades."

Righteous. And it's not 14 hours long.

My 'Watchmen' Enthusiasm Is Waning

You may have heard that a little flick called "Watchmen" is coming out on Friday. I'm just gonna put it out there: I'm kinda over it.

"Watchmen" is the Holy Grail for serious comics lovers, but as I've said before, I waited too long (way too long) to appreciate it. Do I understand its impact on the genre? Absolutely.

It's no secret that "Watchmen" writer Alan Moore wants nothing to do with the film adaptation or that he has absolutely no use for D.C., which owns the rights to it. Moore has frequently criticized the comics industry, and justifiably so in many cases. Hollywood isn't much better, as the film version of "The League of Extraordinary Gentleman" proved. He's got a right to be disdainful of the practices of both industries based on his past treatment.

But I'm weary of his seemingly dismissive attitude toward mainstream comics as art and the people who enjoy them. It's one of the themes in his recent Q&A interview with Wired magazine. As usual, he has a lot of interesting things to say. But some of his statements bugged me a little.

On superheroes: "But looking at the superhero today, it seems to me an awful lot like 'Watchmen' without the irony, that with 'Watchmen' we were talking very much about the potential abuses of this kind of masked vigilante justice and the kind of people that it would in all likelihood attract if these things were taking place in a more realistic world. But that was not meant approvingly."

Is it such a bad thing to enjoy "Green Lantern" without irony? Especially since it's, um, not real? Besides, he admits that he hasn't read comics closely in many years ... so how would he know?

On people who read comics: "They're being bought in many cases by hopeless nostalgics or, putting the worst construction on it, perhaps cases of arrested development who are not prepared to let their childhoods go, no matter how trite the adventures of their various heroes and idols."

Stereotypes contain a kernel of truth, as this statement certainly does. But what about the discriminating comics readers who sift through the dreck and take reading and literature seriously? Besides, if an otherwise responsible, productive adult wants to spend an hour a week with the Flash, why is that something to look down upon?

Obviously, parts of that interview took me there. And as opening day approaches, the less certain I am that I want to spend almost three hours in the relentlessly dystopian "Watchmen" universe. I'm not a person who thinks that art should never be upsetting, but I'm feeling particularly protective of my psyche right now. Maybe I'll feel differently by Friday, but it's not like Alan Moore wants my money anyway.

Will 'Watchmen' Resonate?

My friend Shag has a prediction about how the general public will react to the “Watchmen” film, though he hopes he’s wrong. His theory is that most people either won’t care enough about the movie adaptation of “the greatest graphic novel of all time,” or they won’t get it. What happens if millions of people show up expecting “Spider-Man?”

Shag's got a point. Since I’ve discussed “Watchmen” mostly with other casual-to-hardcore comics geeks, I hadn’t considered the fact that it might not resonate beyond our borders.

While I had problems with "Watchmen" as a work of literature, I'm still interested to see it on the big screen. However, it is entirely possible that the uninitiated will see the trailers and scratch their heads in confusion — or shrug. But even if they are familiar with the plot, will the average moviegoer want to see an event film that is set in 1985, subverts the superhero genre and is relentlessly grim? The Guardian said it "makes last year's famously brooding Batman sequel 'The Dark Knight' look like 'Alvin and the Chipmunks.' "(At the very least, I’m glad it’s rated R so that stupid parents will be less likely to bring their children.)

We'll see what happens on March 6. Until then, check out some of the early buzz.

Random Oscar Night Thoughts

I've ignored the Oscars for the past couple of years, and at a time when the economy is at death's door, it seems especially silly to care. Who wants to see a bunch of incredibly rich, well-groomed people tell each other how awesome/beautiful/talented they are?

Uh, I guess I do. Thanks to Hugh's charm-tastic opener, I got sucked in and watched the damn thing for almost two hours. One of my Facebook friends said I was practically live-blogging the show through status updates. It's a sickness.

1. I'm not a big fan of Jennifer Aniston as an actress, but she looked great and was very composed on stage considering that Brad and Angelina were in the front row. Admit it; you hoped the camera would pan to them — and it did.

2. Miley Cyrus' dress wasn't that bad, was it? I thought she looked nice.

3. Vanessa Hudgens and Zac Efron are officially the cutest couple ever to emerge from the House of Disney.

4. Steve Martin's "Don't fall in love with me" line to Tina Fey was one of the funniest moments of the night.

5. Not even Hugh Jackman could save that awful musical number with Beyonce, the "High School Musical" kids and the chick from "Mama Mia!" Sometimes, less is more, even at the Oscars.

6. I miss Cher. This year's so-called red carpet "disasters" weren't nearly as entertaining as her infamous Bob Mackie getups.

7. It's still hard to believe that Heath Ledger is dead. He was fantastic as the Joker, but anyone who saw "Brokeback Mountain" knows that he should have won an Oscar for his performance in that film. It was moving to see his family accept the award on his behalf.

8. I want whatever tape/support undergarment Sarah Jessica Parker employed to hoist her girls.

9. Is it just me, or does Robert Downey Jr. look good for someone who ought to be dead?

10. There wasn't really a dress that made me go "Wow," though I thought Taraji P. Henson was lovely. She deserves better than Tyler Perry scripts from here on out.

11. Natalie Portman's utter perfection is starting to get on my nerves.

12. How sweet are the kids from "Slumdog Millionaire," another film I didn't see?

13. Wall*E was totally robbed.

14. I agree with Slate.com: "I have a feeling that after last night's speech, the dreamily high-cheekboned (Dustin Lance) Black will have no shortage of proposals for everything from one-night stands to eternal wedded bliss."

15. Tilda Swinton isn't for everybody, but I dig her style.

16. Love you, Kate, but I'm still not going to see "The Reader."

See-Worthy: 'Milk'

I'm always a little wary of important, heavily praised movies that I've waited a little too long to see, and "Milk" was no exception. But while "Milk" isn't a flawless movie, it is a very good one that is anchored by knockout performances from Sean Penn and Josh Brolin, and a fine supporting cast. Emile Hirsch, perhaps atoning for "Speed Racer," is especially good as a young Cleve Jones, the activist who went on to create the AIDS Memorial Quilt project.

A couple things came to mind while I watched "Milk" with my friend R: First, it's hard to imagine that this film would have been possible without the success and frankness of "Brokeback Mountain." The sexuality in "Milk" is hardly over the top, but the fact that it exists at all in a mainstream movie represents a sea change. James Franco kissing Sean Penn didn't seem to be nearly as big of a deal as Heath Ledger kissing Jake Gyllenhaal just four short years ago.

However, it was unsettling to think about how far this country still has to go in terms of granting gay Americans full civil rights. Some of the anti-gay rhetoric in archival footage from the 1970s is nearly identical to the rhetoric today in many parts of the country - that gays are a threat to American values, that they can't be trusted around children, that God disapproves, etc. Here in Florida, voters passed a depressing constitutional amendment that defines marriage as strictly between a man and a woman. California's Prop. 8 did the same thing, with overwhelming support from (irony alert) African-American voters.

Back to the acting: Josh Brolin was amazing as Dan White, the struggling politician who ultimately killed Milk and San Francisco's mayor in 1978. He brought complexity and vulnerability to a character that could have been easy to hate, playing him as a man who is losing his place in a changing world. Give that man a Best Supporting Actor Academy Award. James Franco was quite good as Milk's warm and supportive boyfriend, Scott Smith. You really feel for him as he loses his partner to a movement that eventually overwhelmes their relationship. (And for the record, Franco is incapable of burying his hotness, even with a bad perm and a '70s mustache. As my friend J. would say, some people are just gifted.)

It's down to one showing at the Miracle 5, so check it out while it's still on the big screen.

I Want To See This Movie

It looks like "Medicine for Melancholy" will not be screening in Tallahassee anytime soon, even though director Barry Jenkins is a Florida native and an FSU film school grad. But I'm still stoked about this movie, which is about two people who are young (not my words) "blipsters," or black hipsters.

The movie takes place after a one-night stand between Micah and Jo, two San Francisco dwellers grappling (or not) with race and class issues. But it's also about the spark of a potential relationship, which has nothing to do with color. I haven't seen it, but it's so encouraging that someone has made a movie about black people who aren't dressed in drag, seeking redemption through gospel music, or doing an extended "Living Color" sketch. What took so long?

As someone who embraces their blackness but is also worn out by the politics and same old discussions of race, I'm intrigued by the themes in Jenkins' film. Based on what I've read, Micah and Jo have different ideas about how their blackness affects their lives, or whether it should matter at all. If you're a person of color whose interests and activities are largely associated with white people — especially in certain parts of the country — it's hard not to think about it sometimes. In my experience, other people are thinking about it for you.

The DVD is scheduled for release this spring, and I'll be ready. To read more about "Medicine for Melancholy," go here.