Adventure Time with Finn and Jake, one of Cartoon Network’s best new cartoons, has finally infiltrated the comics sphere. Ryan North of Dinosaur Comics will be penning the ongoing series for BOOM! Studios’ all-ages imprint, KaBOOM!. Various indie writers and artists are scheduled to contribute with covers and secondary stories, including Jeffery Brown, Emily Carroll, Scott C., Lucy Knisley, and Aaron Renier.

As a recent interview with North suggests, an Adventure Time comic could be a great platform for filling in the gaps of the show and giving more attention to underdeveloped characters.

“In addition to the on-model, issue-to-issue story that Shelli and Braden and I are working on (on-model means it’ll look like the show does), there will be a 5-8 page artist-driven story (done in their own style!) in each issue that focuses on a different supporting character, along with 1-2 special artist covers per issue,” said North. “It’s going to be awesome! We’re cramming in as much awesome per page as legally allowed.”

You can read more about what to expect from the upcoming series over at Newsarama. Now all we need is an Adventure Time video game, which honestly I’d rather choose over the in-the-works South Park RPG.

So Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (or HP 7.2) succeeded not only in emptying my wallet to movie executives but also searing my eyes with action, action, ACTION.

I guess forking over ten bucks to see the Wizard Battle of All Wizard Battles is a worthwhile purchase. It certainly made good use of its 2-hour-plus running time, proving that the “Part 2″ label I had been worried about was more than a rouse to get my money and drag out the action for half a year. Most of the movie was indeed action upon action, with few of those lighthearted moments that made all the other HP movies so captivating, but I guess that’s the price you pay when the world’s about to end.

Even though everyone was busy despairing, the characters did crack some  jokes, though most of them missed the pan and spilled all over the floor, which was already covered in bloodied goblins and dead wizards. So the mood was spoiled, and even more so by the lack of tension going into a lengthy battle sequence. If the Big Battle had been tacked on to the first part of Deathly Hallows, we would be raring for a good brawl. Instead, I felt like I had taken a half-year nap and oh, okay, an apocalyptic battle, you say? I’ll just put on my shoes and be out in a minute.

I think the reason HP 7.2 wasn’t a waste of my money, since I liked it the least of any Harry Potter film before it, is because it gave us a good battle, full of heroic feats and scavenger-hunting and final glimpses of important characters before they kicked the sorting hat. My favorites were Snape and Neville, who truly shone. Dumbledore—or the “new” Dumbledore, as I call him, since no one can ever replace the charming old actor who originally played Dumbledore before passing away—was a boring schmuck, as usual, and not at all engaging.

One other note about the film: what’s with the they’re-kind-of-aged ending? Harry was the only one who looked believably aged; Ron just had a gut; and all they did to Hermione was put up her hair.

In all, the movie was okay, but I would have gladly rented it. No wonder the internet has nothing else to say about it except, “It was a good end to a great series.”

Today’s news does not ease my worried mind.

Reportedly, Adam West will make a cameo in the third movie. As Josh Wigler of MTV Splash Page smartly observes, “Bringing West in for a small role might be fun, but it also runs the risk of ripping the committed viewer right out of an otherwise dramatic picture.”

I completely agree. In fact, many of Nolan’s decisions for his last (most likely) Batman film have me wringing my hands in concern. Bane as the choice bad guy? I used to have respect for the villain who broke Batman’s back, until contemporary writers started dismissing him as a joke (and not a deadly one, unlike the Joker’s knack for humor). He’s been reduced to a steroid-raging wrestler-type who’s all talk and no crippled Batman. Maybe Nolan wants to restore him to his old glory. Or maybe Nolan isn’t going for realism this time around, as Wigler suggested—”It just doesn’t seem like Nolan’s style.”

And the Lazarus Pit? Explain that one to me.

I’m not the biggest proponent of Anne Hathaway as Catwoman, either, but perhaps she’ll surprise me. I just hope she doesn’t turn out to be another Rachel Dawes.

Nolan has never steered me wrong before, and I have no concrete reason to doubt his genius now. But I’m still worried. Nolan could be pulling a Bruce Wayne here: either he’s setting us up to blow our minds, just like every time Bruce steps into the Batsuit, or he’s going to embarrass us horribly at some dinner party. I’m not sure which.

This Fourth of July, let Jubilee provide all your fireworks entertainment. It’s time to gear up Netflix for a weekend or two because X-Men: The Animated Series (1992-7) and X-Men: Evolution (2000-3) are now available on instant streaming. The Avengers: Earth’s Mightiest Heroes! Season 1 (2010) is also newly added.

Marvel Action Hour: Iron Man (1994-6) and the three summer-slated Spider-Man cartoons are still unavailable: Spider-Man (1994-8), Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends (1981), and Spider-Man (1981-2).

More Marvel cartoons are coming this summer and fall. The Marvel website has a full breakdown of the shows you’ll be able to watch immediately upon release (or “immedjately,” as Scarlet Witch pronounces it).

Wolverine is one of my favorite comic book characters. Hugh Jackman seems like a pretty chill guy. The two worked well for a while, but now every time I picture them together I can’t help but envision a show-stopping Broadway number.

Comic book readers have the same problem (minus the jazz hands) with Wolverine’s character in the Marvel Universe. He’s just everywhere, infiltrating everything, like the damn good government weapon he is.

When X-Men Origins: Wolverine embarrassed itself in theaters, I had hoped the mutant would hang his head and go have a beer to recuperate. I did not expect, or want, him to return in another me-me-me film.

But now his next solo venture is back on track, after the departure of director Darren Aronofsky and the earthquakes in Japan.

I’m wondering how the hell they arrived at a name like “The Wolverine.” We all know there’s only one Wolverine, best at what he does, which isn’t very nice, etc. So is he distinguishing himself from other wolverines? The kind that scurry around in the wild? Is Hugh Jackman now a wrestler?

According to MTV Splash Page, “Based on a story by Frank Miller and Chris Claremont, this movie will take Logan to Japan where he has to deal with the Japanese mafia and the problems that arise due to his own bestial nature.”

Given how goofy X-Men Origins: Wolverine was, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some bad dubbing and ridiculous stunts. It might even be better that way.

I have no clue why people are so dismissive of Thor and X-Men: First Class. They’re about ten times better than most superhero movies, yet people are disliking them that much more. Are people getting bored with superhero cinema? Beats me.

X-Men: First Class was worth every penny of admission. I’d go see it again, right now, if someone asked me to.

(Some spoilers ahead)

Reason #1: Holy Shit Magneto

This  guy is my top reason. Michael Fassbender, the actor who played Magneto, was awesome. Whether he was drinking beer or performing coin tricks (move over, Joker), I was shitting my pants. What a fine Magneto. I guess the super dramatic music playing over his scenes didn’t help ease the tension.

One of my favorite moments was with young Erik, when Schmidt asked him to move the coin, and then the camera shifts to reveal the gigantic wall of metal objects behind them as the Nazis bring his mother in as leverage. You knew some shit was going to go down.

It’s a testament to a movie’s action when, in a day and age full of over-the-top special effects and ridiculous stunts, the action can still stun you. The scene with the metal chain and the ship? Holy smokes.

With all due respect to Ian McKellen, Fassbender is the better Magneto. He scares me a lot more. Plus, the director (Matthew Vaughn, of Kick-Ass fame) went deeper into the character’s psychology than Singer did in the first two X-Men films. Sure, Magneto’s a hypocrite because he wants to oppress a race (humans), when the same was done to him (a Jew) years ago. But in Vaughn’s film, Erik’s trauma is still fresh: brief but happy memories flickering like a candle in the dark recesses of his mind, and a hatred emerging toward those “just following orders.” Why he thinks the way he does makes a lot more sense and is shown much more honestly here than in any other X-Men film.

Reason #2: With the Grain

I found it refreshing that Vaughn didn’t contradict any cannon set up in the X-Men trilogy. Rather, he establishes a link between this film and the first of Singer’s: how Xavier ended up in a wheelchair, how the X-Men became a separate team—he even covers why Mystique is so loyal and romantic toward Magneto. Vaughn could have easily ditched Singer’s efforts and rewrote X-history completely, but he chose not to. Good move.

Reason #3: Genes and War and Mutant Men

“Realism” only goes so far when you’re dealing with comic book movies, but the storytelling was so engaging and grounded in First Class. In other words, there was no super machine that magically turned humans into mutants (X-Men 1 for you). Everything that happened was understandable in the context of the story, setting a good pace and giving each of the characters due screen time. Except for Darwin, poor guy.

Okay,  so Azazel maybe said all of two words the entire film, but screen time doesn’t necessarily equate to character building.

Reason #4: The Drunken Flirt, Xavier

This falls under the humor category. There was hardly a dull moment. I laughed my ass off. For such a serious story, the characters were generally laid back and cool, in that 60s way. They didn’t take themselves too seriously. Except Mystique, at times. And Magneto has that chip on his shoulder.

Reason #5: Nobody’s Perfect

Magneto isn’t the master metal-worker, and Xavier isn’t the best smooth-talker. They have a lot to learn before they reach the level of finesse demonstrated in Singer’s X-Men trilogy. Even the recruits are a sorry bunch at first, untrained and out of touch with their powers.

People gush over Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen as the ideal Xavier and Magneto, respectively—and they are perfect for the roles of these characters’ experienced selves. But youth is when their classic friendship is formed and broken; McAvroy and Fassbender are much more interesting to watch.

Reason #6: Kevin Bacon, in Style and Money

So Kevin Bacon can’t rock the Magneto helmet. It’s not his, anyway. But he made an entertaining villain, and I like that they held off on revealing his character’s powers until a little ways into the movie.

Reason #7: Hellfire Club

The Hellfire Club was an unexpected choice, but one that worked well as the center of villainy. Comic book aficionados or fans of the 90s cartoon will place it easily.

Reason #8: Mystique Can Talk! … And Talk …

Finally, Mystique gets to do more than stand around and look blue and naked. No wonder she turns evil—no one gives her a lick of sympathy. But hey, at least she can express herself with more than just body language in this film.

Reason #9: Dead People

This calls back to the “realism” point. A lot of the deaths in First Class are graphic—people die left and right, and the survivors react to the sight as real people would: in horror. It’s no more gory or violent than any other superhero film, but the emotion makes an impact that’s hard to ignore.

Reason #10: Totally Memorable

I can’t stop thinking how damn good this movie is. There’s so much to talk about—so many good, intelligent moments; so much tension; and a healthy number of characters who get the proper attention.

It’s totally better than any other X-Men film. Sorry, Singer, but it’s true. You’ve been out-classed.

First of all, that’s the best you could come up with, NYC Film Critic Ethan Alter? “Rhymes with bore?”

What’s everybody’s deal with Thor? Sure, the trailers inspired zero confidence, but after hearing that the movie was pulling 95% at Rotten Tomatoes and that the directer was Kenneth Branagh of all wondrous men, I knew it would be worth the admission fee.

Here’s my version of Thor in a nutshell (warning: slight spoilers, duh).

Story? You have Michael J. Straczynski assisting—the guy who has just about every comic book reader worshiping him for his godly writing on the actual series Thor.

Direction? Kenneth Fucking Branagh. Look him up. Enough said.

Casting? Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is more charming than Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man. Total win.

Natalie Portman is … well, she doesn’t exactly bring her A-grade, Black Swan material to this movie, but she’s still riding high on that Oscar-fresh respectability. Good for her.

And we have Anthony Hopkins as Odin. As the paternal figure in a family whose first language is angry yelling, no one tops Anthony Hopkins. The man’s a beast.

Come to think of it, all the casting choices are top-notch. As the pasty and much scrawnier brother Loki, Tom Hiddleston makes an excellent foil to the gorgeous Thor, who reeks of “bro” at the beginning and then eases into a more sophisticated man’s man later on. God, no wonder Jane Foster was so weak in the knees. Natalie Portman didn’t even have to act. (And she didn’t, too much, anyway.)

Thor’s band of merry friends are pretty cool, too, for secondary characters. So was Heimdall the gatekeeper (played by Idris Elba).

Agent Coulson is kind of getting on my nerves, though. Blah blah blah—S.H.I.E.L.D. Do something with them already, Marvel! I’m sick of those suits standing around.

Special Effects? If anything, they’re a little too polished. A lot of the costumes/monsters and architectural designs were very cool, and Thor looked like Thor should, flying red-caped in a storm cloud, so mission accomplished. The extras were visual dessert, and they were impressive, but they didn’t overpower the rest of the film. I figured the 3D totally unnecessary, so I saw the 2D version instead. It did its job well, especially considering the 3D effect was slapped on in post-production.

Maybe that’s where the plummeting reception came from. Thor is now stuck with a 75% rating—that’s a pretty mighty drop from 95% a few days ago. Is the 3D just an ugly bruise on an otherwise handsome mug? Probably a little.

Anyway, even the Norse god/mortal beings disparity worked well … somehow. They didn’t look too silly, though, again, STOP WITH THE S.H.I.E.L.D HUMOR (“Renaissance fair in town?”). Coulson is not funny. He’s a sad, sad little man who’s resorted to stealing little black books (read: diaries) from sweethearts like Natalie Portman—think Where the Heart Is Natalie Portman, not Black Swan or V for Vendetta or Leon: The Professional Natalie Portman (jeez she’s a bad-ass when she’s not in princess buns).

Non-S.H.I.E.L.D. humor? Ipod Girl was funny when she could have easily been awkward. Rednecks lining up to lift the hammer was entertaining (you know that’s how it would happen). Thor liking coffee was a riot.

Characterization? It’s Shakespearian to the max, if you’ve watched any Shakespeare film, ever (kings and thrones and dramatic dialogue about kings and thrones—plus Loki is secretly Richard III). It makes sense with Branagh. There was great energy between Odin and especially Loki and Thor (angry shouting aside), and maybe Loki’s intent got super muddled (I expected him to side with the Frost Giants, and I definitely didn’t expect him to … you know, at the end)—but I liked that he was about twenty shades of gray instead of boring and two-dimensional. The guy cried bitter hot tears of hatred. What more do you want from him? He was great.

The movie did have a terrible and inexplicable habit of not telling people’s names until halfway through, but whatever. Raven-Haired Female Bad-Ass. Old Guy. Nerdy Assistant Girl. You got the idea.

The ending? I liked that it wasn’t fairy book happy, but still happy.

Best Marvel movie? Easily one of the best. And definitely better than Iron Man. I don’t know what people are thinking there. And I loved Iron Man.

Marvel movies are painfully cookie-cutter in their feel-good fun. Thor is no exception, but it does have more style than a lot of its peers. Just, come on. Linking movies and heroes together into a network (or “universe,” if you will) is a neat trick, but enough with S.H.I.E.L.D. They’re the only thing that dragged the movie down, if you ask me.

86% on Rotten Tomatoes

Okay, so Buried is no longer playing in theaters, but I did have the chance to watch the film recently via OnDemand.

After premiering at the Sundance Film Festival, Buried (director Rodrigo Cortés) went public in late September to meet a fair degree of critical success. The curious premise—Ryan Reynolds, a mediocre actor who earns respect with this performance, buried alive in a box with only meager supplies and someone else’s cell phone—won my attention and that of many other moviegoers.

Buried rises to its own challenge, finding a middle ground between technical accomplishment and entertainment. The clever camerawork is done inside the box, sometimes inducing claustrophobia by showing all four walls and sometimes extending one side to emphasize character Paul Conroy’s isolation. Only natural lighting is used, so when the lights go out, the viewer is left scrambling in the dark with Conroy.

The film toys with the viewer’s emotions and expectations as much as it does the character’s, and it plays a particular trick exceedingly well—one that I’ll refrain from spoiling here. The real success of Buried, though, comes from how well it manages to engage your attention. It starts out slow, with little interest, and then draws you in hard. Information surfaces piecemeal, either through phone conversations or imagery (a wedding ring here, a tattoo there), and it all comes together to form a compelling story.

Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments or suggest a Netflix instant streaming film that you’re curious about but would never, ever watch. (I’ll do that for you.)

If you’re familiar with medieval art, then you probably know about the Celtic monks and their lavishly decorative Book of Kells, an illuminated manuscript originating circa the year 800. The Gospel book is considered Ireland’s most precious and renowned treasure.

The Secret of Kells—released in 2009 and directed by Tomm Moore and Nora Twomey—weaves a fictional story around the book’s factual origins, using an ornate and imaginative visual style to captivate readers and tell the tale. The film’s animation changes and evolves as much as the book itself, which a monk named Brother Aidan brings from the secluded island of Iona to the abbey of Kells, hoping to protect it from Viking plunderers. Brendan, the young nephew of the monastery’s stern Abbot Cellach, expresses an interest in the sacred book and begins helping Aidan design its pages.

Against his uncle’s wishes, Brendan passes beyond the abbey walls and sneaks into the surrounding forest in search of berries that can be made into multi-colored ink. Soon lost among the trees, Brendan befriends a mysterious girl with supernatural powers who claims the forest as her own.

Ashley’s forest is wondrously beautiful, but in its depths lies the cave of the Dark One, a pagan beast known as Crom Crauch. Brendan learns that in order to paint smaller, more extravagant designs on the book’s pages, he must peer through a crystal known as the Eye of Collum-Cille—an eye that belongs to the forest monster.

Watching The Secret of Kells is an enchanting visual experience brushed lightly with humor and charm. The animation is clever as well as enjoyable, mimicking the intricate pages of the book, which Aidan and Brendan must keep safe from enemy hands. The music serves the movie well, too, giving it a boost of Irish flair.

Art enthusiasts will love the attention to historical detail, a credibility that underlies the movie without overriding its creativity. There’s much to discover in The Secret of Kells—and that cat is just too damn cute.

Watch the theatrical trailer below.

Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments or suggest a Netflix instant streaming film that you’re curious about but would never, ever watch. (I’ll do that for you.)

Director Spike Jonze takes an unconventional profession—being a puppeteer—and, string by string, snips away all sense and logic. His bizarre 1999 movie Being John Malkovich follows a socially awkward man named Craig Schwartz (played by John Cusack), a puppeteer whose dreams of fame and recognition go unfulfilled as he struggles to earn a paycheck. Settling for a basic filing job to help support his wife Lotte (Cameron Diaz) and their animal roommates—a chimpanzee named Elijah and a parrot or two—Craig meets and begins lusting after the self-centered and highly ambitious Maxine Lund (Catherine Keener), a fellow employee. She makes it clear that she’s not interested, but once Craig finds a portal leading into actor John Malkovich’s head, she has a change of heart.

Eager to impress Maxine, the two begin cashing in on their new office discovery, and customers start lining up for a fifteen-minute peek into John Malkovich’s life. Everyone wants a taste, including Craig’s wife, who reacts euphorically to the experience. Being John Malkovich, it seems, has that effect on people. At the same time Lotte decides she’s transsexual, Maxine starts having sex with the popular actor—as long as Lotte’s the one pulling his strings. Wanting Maxine’s attention for himself, the odd new relationship between Lotte and Maxine enrages Craig, and each fights for a bigger chunk of Malkovich.

Eventually the truth comes out: Riding shotgun in John Malkovich’s body wasn’t a pleasure meant for them.

Jonze’s film is by no means boring; it’s a curious play on Shakespeare’s vision of the world as a stage, a comedy and tragedy rolled into one larger-than-life package. The characters, though, are anything but sympathetic. All of them commit despicable acts at one point or another, and there’s a good chance you’ll like them less and less as the movie goes on. Jonze arguably takes the joke too far at the expense of his audience, as well, because his film doesn’t end on a happy note.

Being John Malkovich is a clever film, but perhaps a little too clever for its own good.

95% on Rotten Tomatoes

Coen Brothers films tend to rank high in my book. No Country for Old Men, Fargo, and The Big Lebowski are just a few on my list that I’ve seen and liked. True Grit fares no different. Based on the 1968 novel by Charles Portis, True Grit first arrived on the silver screen one year later with Hollywood star John Wayne as the drunken and feisty U.S. Marshal Rooster Cogburn. Wayne took home the Golden Globe and Academy Award for Best Actor, passing away to cancer a decade later.

That said, True Grit shouldn’t be considered a smudge on the career of a man highly regarded by American society. Joel and Ethan Coen tell the story closer to its original source than late 60s director Henry Hathaway did in his adaptation, focusing more on the headstrong and determined fourteen-year-old Mattie Ross—a captivating performance by actress Hailee Steinfeld, who stands on firm footing alongside her more practiced co-stars. After a fugitive murderer named Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin) kills her father and steals his property, Mattie embarks on a journey of retribution with Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) and cocky Texas Ranger LaBoeuf (Matt Damon).

True Grit is a rich, western blend, with comedic beats found somewhere between ordinary adventure and danger. The supporting actors pull their weight, and Jeff Bridges could easily steal the show, but it’s witnessing the chemistry between Bridges, Damon, and Steinfeld that gives the movie its real grit.

Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments or suggest a Netflix instant streaming film that you’re curious about but would never, ever watch. (I’ll do that for you.)

The Exorcist is one of those few movies I actually consider scary—the go-to-bed-with-the-lights-on kind of horror film. Made in 1973 by William Friedkin, the movie takes awhile to get going and bring everyone together for the actual exorcism part. Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn), an actress living in Washington, struggles to keep her daughter Regan (Linda Blair) alive after she undergoes a dramatic personality change. The dozens of doctors Chris consults are convinced that Regan is suffering from a brain abnormality, but when the evidence doesn’t show and Regan’s behavior turns more bizarre and unexplainable, possession becomes a possibility.

The movie’s frights work on two levels: the obvious, Regan under the influence of the devil, and the not so obvious, all the weird shots and camera zooms in between—not to mention Captain Howdy. (Go ahead, Google it. You’ve been warned.) Sure, Linda Blair spewing backwards English and pea soup vomit all over priests (Jason Miller as Father Karras and Max von Sydow as Father Merrin) does constitute most of the very gross appeal. Some moments are downright offensive, like the scene with the crucifix and the vandalized Virgin Mary statue. The director doesn’t hesitate to make a monster out of little girl.

The not so obvious, though, is much more unsettling. Father Karras’ dream of his mother and Regan’s prediction that Burke is “going to die up there” just skim the surface of what The Exorcist does so well: It takes the ordinary and elevates it to the surreal. The roaring sound of plane while Chris stares at the priests and the Virgin Mary statue behind them, the shawl resembling a face before she turns toward Regan’s doctors, and even the trippy camera zooms as characters walk side by side or sit together at the kitchen table. The Exorcist prepares you for mind games before demons even enter the picture.

If you haven’t seen The Exorcist, add it to your queue. If you have, give it another watch. Preferably in daytime.

Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments or suggest a Netflix instant streaming film that you’re curious about but would never, ever watch. (I’ll do that for you.)

Directed by Brandon Vietti, Under the Red Hood is the talk of the town. Seriously, I can’t go anywhere without hearing how much people love this addition to the Batman film series, but is it really as good as they say?

Yes and no. For those lacking knowledge about the Red Hood lineage, an ordinary criminal was the first to wear the plain red helm and cape before he plunged into a vat of boiling chemicals and became forever known as the Joker. Now another kook is running around Gotham rooftops calling himself by the same name, but when Batman discovers his identity, the truth strikes closer to his heart than he thought possible.

Fans of the comic books will see this twist coming a mile away. It’s there, lit up by the Gotham City PD spotlight, bright yellow against the cloudy night sky. But the real surprises of this film arise in how graphic and mature its content actually is, and how well it’s handled.

Under the Red Hood unveils a gruffer Joker than most cartoon watchers are used to, but since he’s voiced by John DiMaggio (Futurama), he’s okay in my book. The Joker plays a relatively minor role in these events, given his strong influence, but aside from his surprisingly cruel and violent nature, he dishes out a few good jokes in between crowbar whacks. Batman (Bruce Greenwood) really doesn’t take center stage here, but he’s not downplayed, either.

Neil Patrick Harris does a wonderful job voicing Nightwing, and hits home on his chatty, slightly flamboyant personality. Even Jensen Ackles (yes, Supernatural‘s Jensen Ackles) succeeds as Red Hood, and the power of his performance only grows in magnitude as the movie progresses. Needless to say, the voice acting in this movie is damn good.

The animation, not as much. Sometimes we see a gritty, richly colored Gotham—the beginning overview of the city is particularly striking, as is the Arkham cell scene with the Joker in his orange straight jacket—but sometimes the CGI looks awful, as if using pre-90s technology.

Flashbacks are utilized fairly well, though perhaps too much in the long run. Still, the best move on DC’s part is what the characters get away with on screen, a level of violence more explicit than in any movie of its kind. Under the Red Hood retells the Red Hood story with grace (script credited to comics writer Judd Winick), but it isn’t particularly ground-breaking by itself. What makes it worth watching is, well, everything you wouldn’t think you could see. Kudos to DC and Warner Bros. for having the guts to greenlight such a bold move.

Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments or suggest a Netflix instant streaming film that you’re curious about but would never, ever watch. (I’ll do that for you.)

I adore Lewis Carrol’s original fantasy novel Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and its sequel, Through the Looking Glass, and What Alice Found There—so as someone who appreciates the childlike wonder and twisted wordplay that abounds through Wonderland, I can recommend Tim Burton’s interpretation. Of course, he loses the puns and brain-wracking riddles almost entirely, and while that decision could have easily cost Burton the success of the film, his bizarre and fresh approach to an overdone and overworked subject matter saves him from failure.

This weekend being my first time viewing the movie, I missed the chance to see all its visual splendor—and my, do I mean splendid—in 3D. Maybe that’s a good thing because, as I firmly believe, a movie’s quality shouldn’t be determined or influenced by its dimensional presence. Alice in Wonderland pleases the eye without the aid of any special glasses, and that’s a testament to the vision of the film, its director, and its crew.

Burton’s take on the childhood classic does err in other ways, though. While his story is interesting and, for the most part, unfolds without major problems, the logic behind more than a few scenes skips a beat. The relationship Burton creates between Alice and the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) is … fine, whatever. A little extreme, but fine, and sometimes touching—in a weird way. But why is Alice (actress Mia Wasikowska) an utterly passive character who shrugs a shoulder at the nonsensical? The sometimes bratty Alice in Carrol’s books, prone to temper tantrums and fits of confusion, would toss and turn over such head-spinning nonsense. Wasikowska’s Alice barely lifts a brow.

Not to mention other oversights, like why Alice’s clothes shrink with her and then stay the same size other times, or why the Bandersnatch growls after Alice returns his eye, only to allow her to nap (o-kay) without incident and befriend her. I don’t even want to talk about the ending, which is just embarrassing—about as embarrassing as Beetlejuice‘s. It wasn’t convincing, to say the least.

Burton’s Alice in Wonderland is a decent movie, and one that definitely says, “Watch Me.”

Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments or suggest a Netflix instant streaming film that you’re curious about but would never, ever watch. (I’ll do that for you.)

In 1986, Stuart Gordon directed this half-pornographic, half-neon monster guts movie that teeters between half-stupid and half-hilarious. The hilarity mostly rests with Jeffrey Comb’s lead performance as Dr. Crawford Tillinghast, who co-discovers a parallel realm using a machine called the Resonator. Flipping a switch stimulates the pineal gland in the brain, allowing the experimenter to see and feel an alternate dimension populated by creatures drawn to blood and light. When Crawford’s overzealous colleague Dr. Edward Pretorious (actor Ted Sorel) refuses to terminate the process, a horrible being that Crawford later deems “It” swallows his head, leaving a mutilated corpse and unidentifiable goo as the only evidence.

Some time later, a psychiatrist named Dr. Katherine McMichaels (Barbara Crampton) visits Crawford, who was tossed in a mental institution after making outlandish claims of head-eating demons and creepy crawly things. Katherine, who implements a bold new approach in dealing with schizophrenics (aka not condemning them to a vegetable state through intense drug and electroshock therapy), negotiates Crawford’s freedom under one condition: She wants him to repeat and relive the experiment that caused his breakdown.

From Beyond is a wild horror show, filled with dumb one-liners (“It’s running itself!”) and ridiculous scenarios, from characters wearing oddly selected outfits to the house number reading “666.” The film reveals itself as a porno early on, but as uncouth as From Beyond is, it’s also fun to watch. Whether the director has created a cheesy horror classic or an embarrassment (it’s not hard to outsmart Gordon or these characters) is hard to say. The music is loudly dramatic (Richard Band’s score won for Best Original Soundtrack at the Catalonian International Film Festival) and Combs’ exaggerated delivery is satisfying, but a good majority of the acting is awful and underplayed, and the film could have ended safely halfway through. Instead, the setting moves to a hospital for several gross sequences before returning to the house of the incident. At least this lets us see a hobo freak out.

If you can settle with a disgusting movie that lathers on hardcore sexual fantasies as often as it does cheap but awesome-looking gore (the film also took home a film festival award for Best Special Effects), then From Beyond will give you a few good laughs and none of the traumatizing baggage … as long as you’re not into any of the weird stuff yourself.