The Late Show with Stephen Colbert: Premiere Episode

TV Review: The Late Show with Stephen Colbert: Premiere

In one of the student eating / study areas at my college, they have CBS on during the day. In between classes, I was watching The Price is Right and happened to see that Stephen Colbert's first night was last night. I figured I ought to watch it because: 1. it's TV history (or something), and 2. we watched him a lot during lunch at work, and he's a pretty funny guy. So I stayed up late to watch the premiere, and decided to give it a review, mostly because of the metatextual content I saw. That metacommentary on talk shows and bringing people together were the two big themes of the night, which is a pretty interesting thing for a talk show, but certainly in line with the sort of humor he and Jon Stewart had at Comedy Central. Unfortunately, this review won't be as funny, and since it was written in my head last night, and split between two sessions this morning, it may not even be good at all. So have fun, if you ever read it.

I'm pretty sure the show cold opened with Colbert and random people singing the Star Spangled Banner. (I always feel the urge to stand up when I hear the National Anthem on TV, even though I'm not at the event. I never do, because... well, y'know, standing requires effort. But the urge is there.) I'm only pretty sure about this because I was reading for class and it sort of happened suddenly with no notice, so hopefully I didn't miss much. Regardless, it started off the show with the "bringing people [in the US] together" theme, and brought a bit of the patriotism of his old show with it (even though that was the only part that did so, and he was eventually left, as he said, with only the "narcissism" of his "narcissistic conservative Republican" character). He seemed genuinely happy / awestruck to be filming the opening of the show when he came out, which was nice to see.

The opening monologue was very funny, but remarkably topical. For someone making TV history (his words, but true) he made a lot of jokes that can really only be understood in this particular zeitgeist. This is something that concerns me about all media / culture in general: how much of the totality of a work will be lost to the future, because they don't fully understand the references? For example, as good as Pride & Prejudice is, apparently it becomes SUPER hilarious if you know certain things about the time period (unfortunately I haven't picked up an annotated copy to determine the truth of that claim yet). I suppose there's only a certain amount of humor that can actually be timeless, and talk show hosts are expected to make light of current events, but it struck me as interesting (and disappointing for future people).

There was also a little bit with Jimmy Fallon in there, which was nice. It was pretty brief, so I couldn't tell how sincere Fallon was in his well wishing of Colbert, but he did appear, so I guess it was sincere (hey a rhyme!). It's nice that the two hosts have a friendly rivalry thing going on, but I wonder how long it will last.

After some commercials (there were quite a few commercial breaks—one of which included ads for YouTube and then a Netflix original show right after one another, neither of which I'd seen advertised on network TV before, so that was interesting) we get to the first piece of metacommentary. Colbert noted that just like the rest of the media, he was going to talk about the Republican candidates for president Donald Trump. It is true that when one network or media outlet covers something for the mainstream populace, all the rest of the big media players sprint to follow suit, trying to ensure that their ratings don't slip and that they're relevant, regardless of the actual importance of the subject being covered (although the interest in Trump is arguably actually important). Despite noting that he had to cover Trump because everyone else is, he proceeded to cover Trump anyways. Yes, it was funny, and rather than just straight jokes he did add the context of knowingly joking that Trump and his clips are bad but people just can't stop watching, but it was still a whole bit dedicated to Trump. Whether because of or in spite of the fact that the rest of the media world is doing so is irrelevant; it seemed to undercut the meta-message that media covering things because media is covering things is kind of silly.

A similar thing happened with the Sabra hummus bit. Colbert apparently made a deal with a cursed amulet to get the gig as Late Show host, in exchange for selling commercial goods. Now, the fact that shows are ad-supported is not news, but Colbert's bit about it being, essentially, a deal with the devil explicitly pointed out that perhaps this fact isn't such a good thing for content creators or viewers (And really, who wants ads?). But again, despite this metacommentary, he ended up hawking Sabra hummus and their snack packs. Yes, it was funny, yes it points out the unholy alliance of advertisers and content creators, but he advertised anyways.

The next bit of commentary happened during George Clooney's appearance. One thing Colbert and Clooney addressed was the fact that celebrities (particularly talk show hosts and their guests) are supposed to act like they know each other and get along famously (ha!) despite being pushed together by circumstance, and perhaps having nothing at all in common. Colbert gave Clooney a wedding gift of a Tiffany & Co. paperweight engraved with the phrase "I don't know you." He told Clooney to regift it to the next celebrity that Clooney has to pretend to be friendly with, despite being only a passing acquaintance (I don't know why, but it really appeals to me to think of this little paperweight actually getting passed around the celebrity community, from one not-friend to another).

Clooney and Colbert also addressed the fact that most talk show guests have some sort of project to push when they appear, and here the metacommentary was not undermined: Clooney actually had nothing to push. Instead, they did a funny bit with fake clips from Decision Strike, a movie about the Secretary-General of the UN, played by Clooney, being (basically) James Bond. Perhaps because I was reading so much into the rest of the show, I thought that this could be taken as a commentary on just how not James Bond-esque the job is. I suppose it could also be part of the "bringing people together" theme - rather than having Clooney play a single state's suave secret agent, he was the leader of the (theoretically) premiere international organization dedicated to a peaceful and united human race.

While the first show has these little spots pointing out the absurdity or deficiencies in what are rote parts of (entertainment) media, I doubt that Colbert will keep up with this bit of metacommentary. For starters, having the cursed amulet drone on and force Colbert to do a commercial would get pretty old—even saying "the cursed amulet tells me to thank my sponsors" would be a bit much every show. Also, there is a certain expectation that a talk show host make jokes about the current events of the day. I'm sure Colbert is news-knowledgeable enough to pull more esoteric events from the news to talk about, but that's not really what people want (is it?). Similarly, his future guests will certainly have projects to push, and he will not pretend (?) to not know them - the conversations will flow smoothly, and the clips will come from real movies. So, while it's interesting that Colbert has pointed his funny finger at the tropes of late night talk shows, it won't be able to last. I'm sure the show will be hilarious, and it will continue to poke fun at itself (and media generally), but it seems to me that Colbert sensibly used what is likely to be his largest viewing audience to make the metacommentary above.

I did mention that there was another theme of the night. Starting with the National Anthem, moving to his display of memorabilia (taken from The Colbert Report) that includes his mother's pennant from the Million Man March, Jeb Bush's comments on healing a fractured Washington (DC), and finally the closing musical number, the grand theme of the show was "bringing people together." While I can't be certain of the reasons, it certainly is a nice sentiment. Given the band's name of "Stay Human," and the new, non-divisive personality of Colbert, I suspect this theme will continue throughout the show's run (albeit more subtly in the future).

What wasn't so nice was the length of the final number. Now, having watched The Colbert Report, I know that he's probably a bit more music-savvy than I am, but I didn't know who half the "special guests" were. I recognized the singer from Alabama Shakes and Derek Trucks, but only because I'd seen Alabama Shakes on his old show, and Derek Trucks in concert (twice!). I have to wonder how many people were in my boat, wondering who the heck some of these people were. Or maybe I was the only one and should feel bad for being musically illiterate? Luckily, an article did help, but the only reason I was able to use it during the final number was the fact that it just kept going on and on. Yes, it fit the theme of trying to bring people together, but after a while it became tiring. Maybe if there had been more musicians I know or care about, I would have felt differently about it.

Other than that one issue with the final tune being juuuust a bit too long, the show was good. Would I stay up late to watch it again? Nope, because I wake up early these days and it's not worth it. I am curious about how the Elon Musk interview will go, but not curious enough to watch it live. Oh well. I suppose I can watch it online, at colbertlateshow.com (Do note that the colbertlateshow.gov address he mentioned right before a commercial break does not, unfortunately, exist—although I wouldn't have put it past Colbert and Obama administration to actually have it redirect to the government's passport renewal page.). Well, I could... if the website didn't stop me from watching videos because I have an ad blocker installed.

Yes, the CBS website is a jerk. I actually first tried to watch things on a tablet, so I got the mobile version of the site (It's worth noting that I have never before actually gone to a talk show's website because it said there was bonus clips and such there, but I did want to see some of the stuff edited / cut out of the Bush interview. For some reason, there were a few cuts that seemed more obvious than usual, both in his and Clooney's interviews—I mean, you can often tell that something was cut out in talk show interviews, but this time seemed more apparent, and I don't know why.). The mobile version of the site has a link for a video about Colbert being the new voice of the Waze app. I assumed it would be a good video to watch, so I tapped it, and was taken to the Google Play Store and directed to download the CBS app. Which is pretty terrible, since they really could just, y'know, let me watch the video on the website. So rather than download a stupid app for one video, I figured I'd watch it on my PC.

First of all, the Waze app video is stuck way at the bottom of the list, and I didn't even notice it at first. Secondly, when I went to watch the Jeb Bush clip instead, it stopped Colbert in midsentence and blacked out the video with this message: "This video is unavailable because we were unable to load a message from our sponsors. If you are using ad blocking software please disable it and reload the page." Refreshing the page without disabling the blocker, or just clicking a new video, doesn't even allow the video to start like it did before. So pretty much I immediately loathed the CBS website because they force either their app or ads on you, and they don't even do it in a clever way with a cursed amulet joke. Now, I did disable Adblock Plus for the CBS site, and didn't see any ads while the videos played (either in the video or around the screen) so that's a plus (they still came on afterwards). There are lots of other videos on the site, and maybe I'll watch them, but given that I don't like the site and rarely watch stuff like that anyways, I probably won't. Alas.

Bonus Food Review: Hummus

At Smith's (my local grocery store of choice, owned by Kroger) the hummus choices are Athenos, Sabra, and the Kroger "fancy" brand Private Selections. Because plain hummus is... well... plain hummus, I usually go for the roasted red pepper varieties of the various brands. Athenos is just not flavorful enough (I think they don't put enough red pepper stuff in there, or something?). Sabra is reasonably good, and they actually have lots of red pepper stuff in the middle. But, shockingly, the Kroger brand of hummus is really freaking delicious! I honestly have no idea how that happened, but their Roasted Red Pepper Hummus is by far the best I've tasted. A few tubs (jars? containers?) haven't been quite as good as their top notch stuff, but even so they always at least equal or better Sabra in the roasted red pepper hummus department.

Of course, only Sabra has the little hummus snack packs. I saw one a few months ago, and tried it. It was pretty good, and nice if you want a hummus snack on the go. Of course, it was pretzels and plain hummus, which tastes good, but it's fairly boring. Because, well... plain hummus again. Apparently they do have other, better flavors available in their snack packs, so that would probably actually be very good. But I don't know where I would get them, so... once again, alas.

Reading Challenge 2015

POPSUGAR released a reading challenge for 2015, located here: http://tobyfife.blogspot.com/2012/09/remembering-september-11th.html It's a checklist of books to read, to give people some ideas for more books to read, if they need some encouragement or ideas. A group was set up on Goodreads by some folks as a way to get a community thing going with the challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/152301-2015-reading-challenge The one issue with the Goodreads group is that it has framed the challenge in the paradigm of a weekly read, which is different from the general "read these at some point this year" checklist of POPSUGAR. I know the group says you can read in any order, but they've set it up so that the discussions are only posted a few weeks in advance. I suppose their point that they want to keep discussion relevant and current makes sense, but I don't like it.

Anyways, I've printed the challenge, and it's on my fridge (you can find a Word doc with the list split in half for printing on a single page here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzbPxewaK5DgbS1ERzk4QV96Tm8/view?usp=sharing ). I'm currently reading Quiet by Susan Cain, as the "book your mom loves." Given that I'll be at school with a full load this semester, I rather suspect my school books will make up a good chunk of the challenge reading for a bit.

On the subject of reading more, I found a blog post by a guy named Austin Kleon, here: http://austinkleon.com/2014/12/29/how-to-read-more/ The post itself is good, as are the links found within, especially the links to Ryan Holiday, which lead to more interesting things: http://ryanholiday.net/how-to-read-more-a-lot-more/ http://thoughtcatalog.com/ryan-holiday/2013/04/read-to-lead-how-to-digest-books-above-your-level/ http://thoughtcatalog.com/ryan-holiday/2013/08/how-and-why-to-keep-a-commonplace-book/

The idea of a commonplace book is a fantastic one. I've been keeping little notebooks that I fill with ideas or anecdotes, for a while (although now their place has been taken by my smartphone, sometimes in note form there, but more usually the voice recorder - good for inflection, I suppose). The biggest issue is, of course, actually doing something with the things I write. A codified commonplace book system would likely help, at some point, and I did start that to a certain extent with a Google Drive spreadsheet. But even organizing the ideas is moot without action. So I suppose we'll have to see what action I take with the small things I write and voice record. For now, this blog's reviews will suffice.

The Long Price Quartet

Review 6: The Long Price Quartet  by Daniel Abraham

This review is a bit of an oddity, in two ways: 1. It is a review not of one book, but of four: A Shadow in Summer, A Betrayal in Winter, An Autumn War, and The Price of Spring. These books, while technically standing on their own, are really one single, self-contained unit - The Long Price Quartet - and should be read (and reviewed) as such. 2. The reading of the four books was stretched out quite a bit, both between books and even while reading single books, and so while my memory of the quartet is reasonably good, the experience of reading it was somewhat different from that of a single book.

It's worth knowing that a blog post I skimmed is what turned me on to these books, at tor.com. I don't recall how I found it; it has a certain amount of spoilerish discussion of the world that is built that I somehow managed to forget or skim over it, but it's there if you'd like to read it. It notes that the books are decidedly feminist - while not a "theme" of the books, the fact is that they do address women and traditional lesser roles with depth and understanding, and the women are not merely tropes of "strong women" or anything like that - they are people, acting as people in their situation would. The review also introduces you to the distinctive device that the books use: they are set 15 years apart, but take place within the same world and deal with many of the same characters. It is that idea that initially made me want to read the books - to be sure, many other series have ongoing plots that span years or decades, but this was the first I could remember that did it all in a single unit of four books.

Of course, the each book has to be engaging, otherwise a reader will never even move to the next chapter 15 years later - and engaging they are! The world-building that Abraham has done is superb - the type of "magic" that is introduced is well thought out, and fairly unique - and for those of you that are unsatisfied with the first book's drifting at an explanation, fear not - the mechanisms of the poets and their andat are fully explained later (I very strongly feel that delving too much into the nature of the poets, and the andat (terms that will make sense if you read the books) will detract from the experience of reading the novels. The way they are introduced and then explained seems to me to be an integral part of the reading experience.).

But it is not only the magic that is superbly crafted - the cultures and people of the novels are amongst the most well-written, fleshed-out, and well-rounded that I have ever read. Each character has certain motivations, each culture has certain values, that anyone can understand and connect with. There is less "good vs. evil" in these novels, and much, much more "people doing what they feel is right, or that they feel they must do." And of course, the intervening 15 years between each book add a great deal to this conversation. One 15 year period contains almost an entire life's worth of events for a main character, and is only referenced as his memories, things that have come and gone, that we get mere glimpses at to help us understand how he moved from the character we saw in one book to the one we are reading about now. But it's not merely the changes in characters that we see in these 15 year periods: the world itself moves, changes, and things happen while we are away. It adds a much greater sense of depth - rather than the characters in the book we are reading being the be-all-and-end-all of the world, there are people who skip books, and a world that carries on without them, which adds to a greater sense of depth in the world. One of the most important results of the time between novels is that we can actually see the results of characters' actions. Instead of a brief epilog or a simple "they lived happily ever after," the seemingly good deeds of one book can come back to haunt characters later, giving every decision, every "happy ending" a greater weight with realistic consequences.

And that's almost the point of the books. While the events of a person's life may seem important (or unimportant), even if that person is the ruler of the world, the world itself moves on, and it is that person's descendants, and those of later generations, that carry on with their own lives, as the world itself carries on (especially in the 15 years between books!). I suppose that this review is somewhat vague, but with good reason. I waited quite a while (perhaps even too long) to read the final chapters of the final book, because I knew I would want some time to decompress, to digest the emotional impact of the end of the series. Because this is the sort of series that really does draw you in, and makes you feel as if you are part of its world, and have a stake in the outcome. You will very much be doing yourself a disservice if you don't buy all four of these books.

Edit: I entirely forgot that the third book, An Autumn War, struck me as being a decided metaphor for nuclear weapons, to a certain extent. Or at least, the way our first introduced character views the world has certain parallels to what an anti-nuclear weapon proponent might think. I don't know why I decided to go back and edit this on, but it certainly seems significant when a fantasy novel can strike you with the thought that it is perhaps an allegory for non-proliferation.

Hocus Pocus

Review 5: Hocus Pocus by Kurt Vonnegut

I played a game with a friend of mine: I was in a bookstore, and I said: "I'll buy any book you want me to read." The book store didn't have their first choice and would have to special order it; there was one copy of their second choice coming in some time later; their third choice was Hocus Pocus by Kurt Vonnegut (Wikipedia tells me its full title is Hocus Pocus, or What's the Hurry, Son? The second title makes sense, having read it, but I have only seen this title on the internet - none of the real versions or images of real versions I have seen include it). So I read that, following my friend's loss of faith in the grand company that is Barnes & Noble (Incidentally, I found his works in the Fiction & Literature section of the store, not Science Fiction as I would have expected. It seems he got his wish and has left that particular "drawer," although I hold sci-fi in higher esteem than the critics of his famous quote, and was rather surprised to find him where I did - I'm still not sure if it's good or bad that he is where I found him).

In searching for more context after I finished Hocus Pocus last night, I found a review on Amazon titled "Not for the Uninitiated Vonnegut Reader, but Great for Fans". Having only read Slaughterhouse-Five at this point, this perhaps explains why I was not as enthused by the book as the people quoted on its cover (it does certainly explain why I recognized the word Tralfamadore, though). It's not that it wasn't a good book - it is! - it's more that perhaps I didn't know what to expect, and came away from it feeling a bit... robbed? I'm not sure.

It's full of witticisms, to be sure, but overall is not witty. The overall messages and themes of the book of anti-war sentiment, pro-environmentalism, commentary on the disparity of wealth, the prison-industrial complex, the decline of education, and others are pretty well laid out in the beginning of the book. And they continue to be talked about throughout. It's not so much that I was getting hit over the head with the point, it's just that it was pretty apparent, and didn't need the book to explain it to me. Obviously this book was more entertaining than some essay talking about the ills of the world, but it almost seemed like it was more of a way to pretty up some depressing thoughts and visions of the future with humor.

Of course, that is Vonnegut's way: dressing up the horrors of [war, racism, poverty, etc.] in satire and humor. So perhaps I should have appreciated it more. The story was entertaining, yes, and the issues thought provoking to be sure, but I can't help but wonder if I missed something. If the Amazon reviewer is to be believed, it seems what I missed was the rest of Vonnegut's works beforehand, and therefore a greater appreciation of what his style entails.

I've looked back at my review system, and apparently I am supposed to tell you if you should own, rent, or not read this book (it has been years, after all, since I posted here). Until you own a great many Vonnegut novels and need to complete your collection, go ahead and get this one from a library. Once you do have that collection, you'll not only need to complete it, but maybe you'll have a greater appreciation for this book anyways (Interestingly, Barnes & Noble has many Vonnegut novels collected and made uniform in cover style, as some publishers do with authors who have a large body of work. Despite there being to copies of Hocus Pocus, neither had the uniform cover type of the rest of his novels - perhaps the book isn't "canon"? The two copies of Hocus Pocus were of the same approximate size, but of very different price: one was the standard $8 paperback; the one with nice paper was a $17 paperback. I bought the $8 version, although I would have liked the $17 version - but why pay extra for nicer paper?)

Several Books Read

I've read several books since the last review. Whether or not I review is still to be determined, but here they are:

Justice League Unlimited: Heroes
Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex
Star Trek: Typhon Pact: Zero Sum Game
Star Trek: Typhon Pact: Paths of Disharmony
On Basilisk Station
Superman: Brainiac
The Eternity Artifact
451 (Not Fahrenheit)
The Honor of the Queen
Bullpen Gospels
Aliens & Cowboys
Vince Flynn: Transfer of Power
Mouseguard: Fall 1152
A Mighty Fortress
Pride of Baghdad
Discord's Apple
The Griff
The Eternity Artifact
Eon
Return of the Dapper Men
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
A Song of Ice and Fire 1-4
The Stuff of Legend 1
There Will Be Dragons
Moneyball
Hatter M Vol. 1
Mr. Midshipman Hornblower
Chasing the Dragon (Quantum Gravity 4)
A Confederation of Valor
The War of the Worlds
The Time Machine
Geist
Spectyr
The Book of Jhereg
The Hunger Games Trilogy
The Short Victorious War
Titan
Wizard
The Kite Runner
Dragonflight
Various erotic tales
Oz Books (1-3)

The Historian

Review 4: The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova

You can't glean much from the title alone of this fantastic novel, and even the back cover's summary won't tell you much. It will tell you how great the novel is, and how well-reviewed it is - rave reviews that are well deserved.

It turns out that there are actually several historians in the novel. The story of the three generations of history hunters is revealed through letters, personal narratives, and real-time events. Fortunately for us, these historians are not boring text book authors, but are gifted with amazing literary prowess. The entire book is filled with amazing descriptions of Europe's countries and people, so much so that it almost counts as a trip to Europe itself.

Of course,the historians don't spend all their time describing their journeys. As they make their way to and from some of the world's loveliest locations, they are constantly doing what historical researchers do best - researching. Although there are a great many fictional books referenced in The Historian, the way they are found and introduced to us is very real. It is easy to imagine Kostova visiting libraries and poring through ancient books and card drawers to find the historical facts upon which to base her novel, getting first hand experience of her characters' lives.

That's not to say that the novel is all about research and old books. To be sure, there is plenty, and the care and reverence the old documents are shown, the true sense of history, and of a historian's awe at feeling it, touching it truly gives a sense of what some researchers' lives must be like - and it's not boring. But it is not the amazing way in which research is described that makes The Historian an exciting novel. It is the way the research comes to life - the very real reasons that the characters are researching and reading, living the dream (or nightmare) of experiencing history as it happens - the present is always influenced by the past, and only a historian can truly understand what that means.

Unfortunately for the heroes of our novel, that means living a nightmare. The Historian relishes in suspense and creepiness, slowly but surely leading us down a dark path. It is a path that has been tread before, and Kostova continues it, making her story a perfect heir to Bram Stoker's Dracula. The past not only comes alive, it could very well be alive - the truth of which is very much what our good historians aim to find out. In doing so, they take the reader on a cross-continental journey through history and the present day, while the past looms like a specter at the edges of their, and our, vision.

End review: A delightfully creepy take on an old legend - buy it!

Gnomeo & Juliet (A Movie)

Movie Review: Gnomeo & Juliet

Today, I'll be reviewing a movie. My father was fortunate enough to score free tickets to an advance screening of Gnomeo & Juliet, and I was able to see it.

Going into the movie, I knew nothing about it, except that it was a children's movie, and took Romeo & Juliet to new places with Red gnomes and Blue Gnomes in place of Montagues and Capulets. What I discovered was a delightful gem of a movie, that was thoroughly enjoyable for people of any age. Executive produced by Elton John and with a star studded cast, it was a very well done musical version of an old classic.

That old classic is referenced (beyond the obvious plot line) several times in a tongue & cheek manner, but always subtly, and the movie doesn't beat you over the head with obvious references. Small things like a bus with a Stratford-upon-Avon destination and a cameo from one of the best Shakespearean actors of our time (instantly recognizable to Star Trek fans) will add a layer of experience to those viewers who notice them.

The movie itself has several references to cultural items (including Powerthirst) that most children won't understand, but it doesn't go out of its way to put them there. Yes, many children won't get all the references, but any movie will have viewers that aren't aware of every little cultural reference it contains. The humor is all easily understood by people of any age, but is not dumbed down for its target audience. There are also not as many gratuitous dancing scenes, which seem to be obligatory in children's movies for some reason. They were there, to be sure, but did not take over, and actually served the plot, instead of being completely pointless.

Naturally, the dancers need music to dance to, and I would be remiss if I did not comment on the music of a movie produced by Elton John. As with any soundtrack, the music does not overpower the film, and adds to the general ambiance. You will notice a disproportionate amount of Elton John songs, but that is to be expected. Truth be told, I didn't pay too much attention to the music after the duet he sang with Lady Gaga came on early in the film, but what else I remember of the music certainly couldn't be complained about.

The one really negative thing about the movie is its 3D. The movie was clearly not made for 3D, and does not need it. There are no balls flying towards the viewers, no sticks poking out of the screen, nothing that required any dimensions beyond the flat screen. In fact, the only parts of the movie that really "popped" were the logos of the companies that made the film. If you watch the movie in theaters, you would be better off not paying for the 3D version. Not only will you save money, you will avoid the loud "oohs" and "aahs" of children who act as if the movie is their first 3D experience - which it may very well be.

All in all, an excellent version of a classic. There's fun, excitement, humor and drama, with just enough "touchy-feely" moments to make this a really solid movie. It doesn't require a big screen showing, but it would certainly be worth the money.