The FilmJabber Movie Blog

Robert Bell, who shares his movie reviews on FilmJabber and who is also based in Toronto, somehow was admitted into the Toronto International Film Festival (known as TIFF) despite the chaos he caused last year. OK, he actually didn’t cause any commotion last year (that I know of), but regardless, he has weighed in on the festival in general and many of the films that screened there. Without further ado…

Thanks to some amazing Canadian PR firms and studios, I have been able to catch some Pre-festival screenings of selected films to play at the 2008 Toronto Film Festival.  While no films have stood out as particularly bad, only a couple of films have stood out as great.  Hopefully, some of the films I screen during the fest will have more of a lasting impact.

Strangely enough, I spend most of my daily life in the same building where a TIFF purchasing office and the main press theatre for the festival is so the impact of the festival on our community and how annoying it is to the locals isn’t lost on me.  Endless parades of accreditation-laden press and starfu**ers mill around the bay/bloor area giving our city some much appreciated tourism dollars, despite occasionally behaving with a manner of entitlement and ignorance.

I have little interest in celebrities and networking parties.  In fact, I have ignored invitations to several of them (but am appreciative and thankful for them regardless).  While I am sure there are a couple of wonderful people at them, I much prefer the comfort of my own living room with sincere and carefully selected friends.  This is why most of the mainstream (studio backed) films I will and have seen at the fest were pre-screening invites.  Thankfully, the fine folks at TIFF have managed to match their understandable need to populate the festival with commercially viable star-centric films with an impressive number of obscure foreign and independent films, as well as documentaries.

Below is a list of the films I have seen, from best to worst, with brief impressions of each.

A Year Ago in Winter

“The magic of A Year Ago in Winter is its ability to dabble in stereotype without becoming overwhelmed and its adroitness in exploring the external impact that suicide has on the living without extending naïve answers or solutions.  Categorization is thankfully eluded with skill regardless of each characters desire to simplify complex, unanswerable questions with adage.  The film is about the human desire to simplify perplexing and layered human emotions while coping with feelings of loss, guilt and isolation.  It is consistently powerful, challenging and unafraid to wear its heart on its sleeve.”

Burn After Reading

“The Coen Brothers follow-up their Oscar-Winning triumph with a decidedly kooky satire on human stupidity and exaggerated interaction with Burn After Reading, a consistently entertaining and entirely amusing, if slight, film.  Structurally similar to “Fargo” but far less reflective in its “Raising Arizona” comic sensibilities, it will likely be criticized mainly for its deliberate lack of depth.  This one suffers only from cartoonish performances from McDormand and Pitt, in addition to the folly of ostentatious hipness.”

Yes Madam, Sir

“Filming the documentary over six years whenever she had time among various editing gigs, Megan Doneman has assembled a cohesive and in-depth portrait of a complicated woman.  It is a testament more so to Doneman’s editing skills than her direction, as her point and shoot technique is not particularly visionary but given the conditions and limitations of her endeavor, the final product is rather impressive.

A sense of humour and an effort to avoid typical preaching and bias keep Yes Madam, Sir on just this side of television biography territory, which is much appreciated in an age of heavy-handed manipulation and self-satisfied “lefty” political hipness.”

Plus Tard

“Reliant on single tracking shots and claustrophobic interiors—specifically to reinforce underlying anxieties that stem from external forces and evils—and passive-aggressive suggestions, Amos Gitai’s translation Jerome Clement’s novel of a man trying to make sense of his Jewish parents declarations in wartime has the appropriate gravitas but lacks the emotional complexity it strives for and has nothing particularly cinematic about it.  Everything in Plus Tard, outside of a WW II flashback, feels and looks like a filmed stage play.”

Blindness

“Acting as a kind of erudite, art-house, zombie movie, which dumbs down potential profundity with hippie-dippy, New Age, pseudo-philosophical insights on the state of mankind, Blindness creates discomfort and despondency but glosses over central connectivity, leaving a void where emotional resonance is intended.  Don McKellar’s script reigns in the literary triumph cohesively on a structural level—which itself is no small feat—remaining within the sociophobic confines that were on display in his earlier success, Last Night.”

Happy-Go-Lucky

“Dealing with Mike Leigh’s trademark talking head sensibilities and class system introspection, Happy-Go-Lucky is essentially a romantic comedy that subverts mainstream sensibilities while questioning the affability of the sincerely well-intentioned.  Everything about the film is far too obvious but the overall impact is fairly affecting if surprisingly lackluster. “

Afterwards

“Likely to be criticized for its structural fallibility and its overly sentimental ruminations on the nature of existence and the anxieties involved with acknowledging mortality, Afterwards is a lyrical and occasionally beautiful visual poem that essentially crumbles under the weight of its own ambitions.

A lack of relationship and character development between the leads ultimately keep the film from having the emotional impact it strives for—especially in an epilogue that should, in theory, have been devastating—regardless of the occasional graphic and unexpected violence towards children and well-intentioned players.  On the upside, sincerity and a refreshingly ‘unhip’ atmosphere make these flaws substantially more palatable and forgivable.”

Sugar

“This seemingly standard sports story of a young Dominican Baseball player who is brought to America to play professionally is deceptively coy in its intentions and ultimately winds up as an examination of cultural difference and Western apathy towards foreigners who are treated mainly as acquisitions and useful only when viable.  While foreshadowing is used appropriately in the film, albeit slatternly, the formula never dips into the typical pattern of assigning blame.  Sugar is interested more in making careful observations about those who are seldom considered in a wholesome and genial manner. “

O’Horten

“Owing a lot of its “uniquely” Scandinavian vision to the dry-humoured and deadpan work of Aki Kaurismaki and the starkly satirical, single-shot obsessed Swede Roy Andersson, O’Horten is a slightly amusing satire of aging and retirement.  It is communicated in an almost somnambulistic and structurally repetitive manner that seems interested more so in being dryly quirky than truly exploring the directionless nature of retirement that the didactic implies.

The predictable nature of the formula based set-up eventually over-rides the element of surprise that each scenario relies on to create humour, but the initial impact of this structure succeeds in what it attempts to do, which is more than can be said for most intentionally sly comedies.”

Control Alt Delete

“From the moment that “Sock” from television’s Reaper and Amanda from Ready or Not are seen fully nude in the “69’er” position, it is clear that Control Alt Delete is out to shock the audience rather than titillate with any allusion or subtlety.  The film seems to be an investigation of sexual perversion and deviance in relation to perceived normalcy and how the desire to be socially accepted can cause repression and self-denial, however, it lacks the sort of cohesion necessary to communicate this point effectively.”

 

 

Dean Spanley

“Sure to moisten the panties of the bridge and knitting crowd, who will most certainly gasp when men of the cloth drink Imperial Tokay and other men exclaim “poppycock” during discussions about reincarnation, Dean Spanley is the sort of film that one would expect the Queen of England to watch while acting coyly offended and hiding her inappropriately erect nipples.  It is a comedy of manners and clever” wordplay that reeks of Oscar Wilde smugness but settles for lengthy analyses of canine customs and thought processes.  Limited scope and sincere emotions give it a nudge towards copacetic regardless of being entirely forgettable and often self-righteous.”

Skin

“Feeling more like an ethnographic biography than anything particularly cinematic, Skin tells an interesting story in a discerning, yet detached and glossed-over manner, which does little to make the film exciting or memorable.  While the story itself should theoretically make for an emotional and engaging experience, the television movie vibe and a tendency to rush through and oversimplify several serious life events that span over twenty-five-to-thirty years in the protagonists life, leave an overall feeling of expositional hollowness.”

As mentioned before, none of these films are actually bad, rather, most of them are simply “decent”, which itself is certainly not a bad thing.

This coming week I will be seeing: Appaloosa, Ghost Town, Deadgirl, Che, Revanche, Parc, Linha De Passe, White Night Wedding, Lymelife and Fear Me Not: check back for updates!

The movie trailer for Gus Van Sant’s Milk is online, and it looks like we could have an outside Oscar contender on our hands. The movie stars Sean Penn as the first openly gay elected official in – you guessed it – San Francisco and looks to have the right combination of grit, power and acting to propel it into awards season. Honestly, I haven’t heard any buzz about this film one way or the other, and in fact hadn’t even heard of the movie itself until the trailer was released. Milk is not exactly a title that stands out to me, though now that I know the film is about Harvey Milk – a person I’ve never heard about – it makes sense.

Read the full article »

Have you guys seen the new movie poster for the upcoming Seth Rogen/Elizabeth Banks movie Zack and Miri Make a Porno? Written and directed by Kevin Smith, the comedy has been skirting the MPAA’s limits for quite some time. First the movie was nailed with an NC-17 rating, but who can blame the MPAA? After all, the flick is about two lifelong friends who, to pay off some debts, decide to make a porno together. Since the movie is about sex – well, fake sex – it’s only understandable that it gets pegged with a harsh rating that limits its distribution and box office potential.

Unfortunately, those liberal bastards at the MPAA gave in and changed the rating to R, which means that a whole lot of little kiddies will be subjected to such Kevin Smith filth.

The latest atrocity out of the studio is the new movie poster, which is offensive, vulgar and completely inappropriate for any American to set their eyes upon. Seriously, the studios – and vulgar master Kevin Smith – should censor their material more before subjecting such items to the American public. After all, in the day of the Internet, nothing will stay hidden for long, even if those do-gooders at the MPAA say the poster is inappropriate.

Thank God the MPAA is here to tell us how vulgar this Zack and Miri Make A Porno movie poster is. I mean, look at it. Look at the sexual innuendo! The almost nudity! The passionate looks in their faces! I feel dirty for just posting this poster on my blog.

The Seattle Seahawks. Once again expected to win the NFC West and go to the playoffs for Mike Holmgren’s last season. Seattle sports fans have anticipated the beginning of football season for months, not because the Seahawks have consistently been our sole quality franchise over the last five or so years, but because we’ve already lost a basketball team and seen a potentially good Mariners team turn into the worst in the American League. Needless to say, I, along with many other fans, have been frothing at the mouth for this day.

I don’t follow football in the off-season too much, so I figured that the Buffalo Bills were going to be a pretty easy win for the Hawks. At the very least, going in, I expected an even-handed match. But Jesus Christ, the Seahawks looked like the Mariners: they were God-awful. Sure, the team has some excuses – Hasselbeck has been injured for weeks and has neither practiced himself or built up trust with his receivers; the receivers, of course, are a cluster, as both Branch and Engram are injured, leaving only Burelson and a bunch of rookies. But no one could have predicted a 34-10 ass raping.

Granted, the Bills look good. While they started off as poor as the Seahawks, they finally picked it up in front of their home team and went on to dominate in passing, running and defense. But the Seahawks looked downright terrible. When Hasselbeck had people open, he’d fail to convert. The receivers dropped what seemed like a hundred passes, and only so much can be blamed on rookie mistakes. The defense, understandably, got worn down as the offense failed to give them a rest, but things just went from bad to worse as the game went on. Ultimately, this was one of the worst Seahawks game in recent memory… what a way to start the season.

It was announced today that Tommy Lee Jones, who, ultimately, turned out to be a completely useless character in No Country for Old Men, is suing Paramount Pictures, the makers of No Country for Old Men, for over $10 million dollars from the film.

Jones is asking for “significant box-office bonuses” and other compensation he says are owed to him from the Oscar-winning movie, which went on to make over $160 million. Apparently, according to him, there were known errors in his contract as the film went into production, and he wants an external auditor to look things over and assess what he is owed.

How come every year lawsuits come up like this? Maybe it’s not that uncommon as there are plenty of B2B contracts that go to court, but it always seems like some big name actor or director (I’m thinking of Peter Jackson here) is suing a studio over money that wasn’t paid to them. You have to think that in the day and age of immediate visibility and legal scrutiny that major disputes – such as over millions of unpaid dollars – wouldn’t happen. How does this happen? Are the studios simply naive to think that people who are used to making millions of dollars a paycheck won’t notice if they aren’t paid? Or do the plaintiffs and their lawyers not examine their contract enough? Either way, isn’t the contract supposed to clearly define the amount or percentage an actor, writer, director or crewman is supposed to make?

It seems clear cut to me, but then again, I don’t work in Hollywood.

I just finished watching Child’s Play, as the new Chucky’s 20th Birthday Edition arrives on DVD September 9th. While the franchise has digressed into more humorous, satirical stories over the years, it’s amazing to see just how creepy and gritty the original was.

As everyone knows by now, Child’s Play is about a serial killer who, on his dying breath, transfers his soul into the body of a cheerful doll. The doll soon ends up in the hands of young Andy (Alex Vincent), and not soon after the murders begin. At first, Andy is blamed and taken into custody, but it soon becomes evident that Chucky – not Andy – is indeed a live and willing to kill. As his mother (Catherine Hicks) and an investigating detective (Chris Sarandon) frantically try to track him down, Chucky goes after Andy, his last hope at humanity.

So often, these horror movies fail to stand up to the test of time, but there’s something about the 1980′s that brought out the best in the genre. So many good franchises were launched in the decade, and while the sequels have perhaps made them rather routine, it’s always fun and rather surprising to look back at the originals. Child’s Play, about a killer doll, is a movie that should have never worked from the outset. The flick should have been cheesy and tacky, and given that it’s 20 years old, the visual effects should have been ridiculously bad. Instead, Child’s Play is an authentically creepy and violent film that takes itself seriously and pulls it off.

Unlike later iterations of the franchise, Child’s Play isn’t funny and never intends to be. The movie is dark and twisted, and would still give even the wisest of children nightmares. Twenty years later, the flick still works surprisingly well.

The DVD includes a variety of special features, including two audio commentaries – one with the cast and another with the crew. More interesting is the inclusion of several screen-specific Chucky commentaries, voiced by the doll himself. Additionally, there are several featurettes that examine the makings of the film, from the animatronics to casting and so on and so forth. These featurettes are quite good, as they aren’t promotional at all and really dive into the production of the films. All in all, it’s a pretty good DVD, though if you already own the film, it’s probably not worth purchasing this newer version.

Having just watched the movie trailer for Transporter 3, I’m quite amused by how cocky the B-grade Jason Statham franchise has become. The studio seems to be taking the film for granted, as it blatantly markets that the film is about the same as the last two. Of course, they’ve thrown in a Crank twist just to appeal to those fans, too (though I’m pretty sure there is only one kind of Jason Statham fan) – this time, Statham has an explosive device fastened to his wrist.

The Transporter 3 movie trailer is pretty weak; it has poor setup, shoddy editing and really is quite incoherent. I have it listed as the full trailer, but it plays like a teaser trailer, so maybe I just have it poorly named – but regardless, as a teaser trailer, it doesn’t do a good job of setting the stage. It just jumps right into the action and what’s done is done.

That being said, everyone knows what to expect from a Jason Statham action movie, so why beat around the bush, right? Everyone knows they are going to get a pretty silly and dumb action movie, but one that’s full of adrenaline and some snarky British dialogue. Frankly, that’s enough for me, though I could certainly wait until DVD and not be any worse for it.

The movie trailer for the upcoming Anne Hathaway flick Passengers is now online, giving us a look at the increasingly sexy Hathaway as a federal psychologist who is assigned to work with the only ten survivors of a fiery jetliner crash. While most of the passengers show the typical signs of post traumatic stress, one passenger (Patrick Wilson) stands out as curiously different. Specifically, the guy is in a great mood, but also appears to have developed special powers since the crash (apparently, some kind of connection to the next world). This doesn’t stop Hathaway from breaking her professional ethics and sleeping with the guy, of course.

Read the full article »

It’s September, which means that the summer movie season is officially over and the crap of Hollywood can make it to the big screen. September is historically a bad month for movies, as kids return to school, vacations end and people scramble for the remnants of good weather. This is also the perfect time for studios to dump the waste onto audiences.

Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean there will be nothing to watch this September. Below is a list of movies I’m looking forward to in September:

Read the full article »

It’s almost September, which means that network television is returning to us once again. The fifth season of The Office premieres on September 25th, which means that Season Four is coming to DVD… on September 2nd, to be precise.

The Office: Season Four starts off where Season Three left off – surprise, surprise – with Pam and Jim bringing their relationship into the public atmosphere of Dundler Mifflin. Engagement is hinted at, but will Jim actually propose? Meanwhile, Dwight is continuing his quest to become head of the office (or at least second-in-charge, now that Jim officially holds that title), while still annoyed by the progressing relationship of Andy and his ex, Angela. And Michael is finding his relationship with Jan strained to the brink. Also, young “Wunderkind” Ryan, who was promoted above Michael last season, is trying to take Dundler Mifflin into the 21st century, further creating tension between him and his former colleagues.

Read the full article »

Another one of Chuck Palahniuk’s books is being turned into a movie, and the world will be better for it. Assuming they do it right, of course.

Palahniuk has Choke, starring Sam Rockwell, coming to theaters this fall, but the author with the name that no one quite knows how to pronounce is best known for Fight Club. Take Fight Club, make it stranger and even better and you get Rant, one of my all-time favorite books.

I had received Rant, the book, as a contest giveaway last summer, and almost gave every copy away. Thankfully, my roommate is a Palahniuk fan and alerted me to the fact that the book may actually be good. So, I decided to read it. A weekend later, I set that book down, utterly amazed at what I had read. It was a frikkin’ masterpiece.

Rant, as described on the book cover, is about the world’s most lethal serial killer. That seems simple enough, right? Right? Wrong! The book is told as an oral history; that is, while fiction, it is told in an interview-style narrative with dozens of characters, all of whom have their own perspective and stories to tell about the infamous Buster Casey. Casey is an odd fellow… he likes to stick his hands down animal holes with hopes of getting bitten, and he also heads up an urban night game that involves smashing cars. He’s not exactly serial killer material, but when Palahniuk means serial killer, he may mean a whole spectrum of things. Trust me – until you read the book through to the end, you will not understand what this book is like, or what it is about.

As you can tell, I am excited at the prospect of a movie. At the same time, this is a book that, if done right – and it can be done right – could be made into an exceptional movie, but it also has a 95% chance of missing the mark. The director, writer and approach will all have a significant bearing on the film’s quality, more so than other, more standard pieces of work. It will be interesting to see how the project progresses.

It may be nothing… or it may be something. Twilight, only a couple months before its release, has returned some of its actors to shooting new scenes.

Peter Facinelli (Carlisle Cullen in the movie) told MTV that there’s nothing wrong with the current film, but that executives were so delighted with the wrapped film that they opted to make some more of it; in other words, make the film everybody is waiting for.  “They liked it so much, they are bringing us back for some encore time to beef it up. Add a little salt and pepper.”

That’s ominous, in my opinion. If the executives liked it so much, why add more to it? It’s not completely ridiculous – perhaps the movie is so good that the executives approved additional budget to film scenes that were originally cut – but highly unlikely. And when I hear quotes like the one provided above, it sounds like major PR spin bullshit.

Here’s some more from Facinelli:

“I wouldn’t be walking tomorrow if I spilled those beans, but I’m psyched, especially about the wardrobe. I can tell you that it’s a flashback scene. It gives us a little bit of history of the Cullen family. They are just shooting a couple of different added scenes, and the scene I’m in, I can tell you it’s me and Robert Pattinson. Rosalie and Emmett are in that scene.”

And from Taylor Lautner (Jacob Black in the film): “I am going to be in the prom scene now, at the very end of the film. At first we didn’t film that, and now some people are saying they want to see a bit more of Jacob, and they want him in the prom scene at the end.”

Superman is going to get just a little bit darker, according to Warner Brothers president Jeff Robinov, and will completely ignore the recent Brian Singer movie. Is that good or bad news? I think good.

As most of you know, I prefer something a little darker and edgier over lighter and goofier, which is the direction Singer took (while also attempting to add in drama and Jesus references). Comic book movies need to walk that fine line between being lighthearted and “appealing to the masses” and being serious, hard core movies. With The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan completely crossed that line to the serious side and proved it can work to massive box office returns.

Given the box office “failure” of the reboot Superman Returns and the stunning success of The Dark Knight – the first film to even inspire speculation that it could beat Titanic – it’s no surprise that Warner Brothers wants to take things to the dark side. In fact, according to Robinov, every DC Comics release over the next several years will take that approach, to “the extent that the characters allow it.”

Personally, I really enjoyed Superman Returns, though in hindsight my “A” rating was probably a bit generous. The movie was grand, had some decent action and did, in fact, treat Superman in a more serious light. Still, as Singer stated himself, he wanted this movie to be a continuation of the old Christopher Reeves movies, and thus a level of goofiness and lightheartedness remained. What hurt the movie was that Singer attempted to combine action, comedy, drama and allegory all into one, and that’s just not what people wanted. Furthermore, while there were some good action scenes, the movie was not the explosive action-fest one would expect from a 21st century Superman. Finally, while Spacey was really good, his Lex Luthor was a bit too much of a homage to Gene Hackman’s Lex Luthor; the world has moved beyond dangerous but goofy villains with huge, “blow up the world” kind of plots.

So, assuming that Lex Luthor is once again the villain in this reboot of Superman, let’s look at what the new movie, currently titled The Man of Steel, needs to do to be successful:

• More action. The Dark Knight proved that you can make a serious, thought-provoking movie that ends with non-stop action and violence for the final 45 minutes.
• Better marketing. The marketing team was tied with the last one as the film lacked the money shots needed to really wow audiences into theaters. Better action should help this out.
• A more serious Lex Luthor. I don’t need to see him coming up with some zany plot to destroy the world by making new real estate. Have him do serious things with serious consequences, and lose the goofiness. Luthor should be legitimately scary and threatening.
• A real, good guy vs. bad guy ending. Don’t end the movie with Luthor winding up on a deserted tropical island (how did his helicopter have the fuel to go that far anyway?) and Superman saving the day by lifting a continent in the sky, causing him to almost-die for another 20 minutes. Have a battle of epic proportions that comes down to the closing credits, where Luthor ends up in jail and some other villain ends up dead.
• Have a bad guy that can pose a physical threat to Superman. Done right, The Man of Steel doesn’t need a supervillain, but better be safe than sorry. Introduce a villain that is deliciously evil and can put up a fight against Supes.
• Lose Superman’s kid. It’s unlikely we’ll see the son of Superman anytime soon. Seriously, Singer, what were you thinking?
• Don’t dwell too much on the beginnings of Superman. We all know how he came to be on Earth, how he was raised, etc. Don’t spend 45 minutes on it, unless you get Christopher Nolan to do that film as well.
• Give Superman a personality. He doesn’t have to be a depressed robot like Brandon Routh was.

All that being said, Warner Brothers will have to be careful to keep charisma in their pictures as they give a darker overtone to them. When done right, the results can be marvelous (The Dark Knight), but they’ll have to be careful not to attempt to duplicate its success by simply “making things serious.” If done wrong, you’ll get some rather dull films sapped of their comic energy, and that’s not going to win over audiences. Instead, as with any film, you need the right combination of director, writer, cast and screenplay; WB should be careful not to lose sight of this.

Heroes: Season Three is almost here, which means Season Two is coming to DVD. The four-disc set contains the shortened, 11-episode season, complete with time traveling, viruses, wedding massacres and more. It’s no question that most Heroes fans will scoop this DVD set up despite what my Bible-like words say below, but what about those on the cusp? What about those poor, pathetic people who haven’t completely embraced the world of Heroes? What about starving African children?

Let’s all face it: Heroes: Season Two wasn’t as good as series one. Writer’s strike aside, it was still a tad rushed, a little weak in the writing department at times, and so on and so forth. Some characters were taken down some strange paths (Mohinder), and others were introduced that just weren’t very interesting (like the New Orleans girl who can learn anything). The writer’s strike made the last several episodes even more accelerated than the earlier ones, leading to rough transitions, undeveloped stories and a resolution to the season-wide story arc that should have come 13 episodes later. All that being said, Heroes is still one of the best shows on television.

But that’s not what I’m here to review. There are plenty of websites devoted to just how good (or bad) Heroes is, so I’m focusing the rest of this review on the bonus features. As is typical with TV releases these days, the bonus features are annoyingly spread across multiple discs, which is probably fine for most – except for when you’re trying to review the bonus features and have to swap the disc out every fifteen minutes, damn it.

Anyway, the highlight of the box set is the deleted scenes, of which there are plenty. Practically every episode has a couple of deleted scenes, some of which are quite revealing. As always, you won’t miss too much if you never see these, but as far as deleted scenes go, they’re pretty good. The highlight… of the highlights… is an alternate ending, which truly is an alternate ending. SPOILER ALERT. Whereas in the actual final episode of the season, Peter, Nathan and Hiro stop the virus from being unleashed – only to have Nathan get shot while attempting to announce that he has special powers. In the alternate ending, the writers take the darker approach by letting the virus get released, causing Odessa, Texas to go into quarantine. Ultimately, the actual ending is tighter and more effective, but it would have been pretty cool had Peter not caught the vial at the end of Season Two.

Beyond the alternate ending and deleted scenes, Heroes: Season Two comes with some pretty good “Genetics of a Scene” clips, which are pretty entertaining and slightly insightful. I’d recommend these. There are also some NBC featurettes, which I didn’t watch, and a series of “Untold Episodes,” which are pretty good. There are also audio commentaries for the episodes.

Unfortunately, the rest of the bonus features aren’t all that good. There’s a ridiculously cheesy “documentary” about Takezo Kensei, which is so bad I could only watch a minute of it. I mean, it’s about as bad as faux documentaries can get. A “news reel” about Richard Drucker is also quite terrible, and rather pointless unless I completely missed something. The “Season 2: A New Beginning” featurette is just a promotional, “you’re going to see things you’ve never seen before” kind of featurette, and the Season 3 preview is, as expected, nothing special.

Heroes: Season Two is worth the purchase because, yes, it contains all of the episodes from season 2. The deleted scenes, alternate endings and “Genetics of a Scene” bonus features are well worth it; at the same time, NBC would have done well to save themselves some money and not include their “original” bonus features, as they are downright terrible and just a waste of money. Still, recommended for the overall value of the show.

Anyone remember watching The Tick, which starred an idiotic but good-natured superhero (named The Tick) and his brainier but not quite so confident sidekick, Arthur? The show was hilarious, and while it has been canceled a few times, it never seems to die completely. The lovable superhero is back on the Minisodes Network, which takes the original content, shrinks it down to five minutes while maintaining the general storyarc, and provides them for free on the Internet.

So, in other words, for all of you – like me – who liked cartoons growing up but don’t have the patience to watch 25-minute episodes anymore, this could be a great alternative (I’m pretty sure they have non-cartoons as well). Here’s the pilot episode of The Tick… [EDITOR'S NOTE: Having written this post before watching the video, I now see that the pilot episode is for the live-action version. Either way... Enjoy!]