Project Runway Rundown: NYC at Nite

I hate to sound like a grouch, but, three episodes in, I'm just not feeling this season of "Project Runway.

Season 5 just seems like it's stuck on neutral with not enough people standing out. Unfortunately, the ones that HAVE broken through have done so for all the wrong reasons. I don't even care if this seems like an exact replica of my complaints following the season premiere — if Suede can go back to the "Suede rocked it" well again, why can't I? (Honestly, I'm not convinced that wasn't reused footage from last week).

All I know is that, by this point, last year, I already liked Chris March, Sweet P., Kit Pistol, Jack (and I was a few weeks away from warming up to Christian Siriano and cooling off on Rami). With this crop of designers, um, I guess one of the white girls is ok. Terri seems like she'd be fun to hang out with. Joe seems like a relatively sane human being. Daniel seems ok, as he expressed sadness over his dearly departed Wesley, because the two had bonded. Huh? Since Wesley probably got 25 seconds of screen time in two episodes, I'm assuming most of this "bonding" took place out of the camera's view. And by bonding, I mean boinking.

One person I most certainly am not warming up to is Blayne. I tried to give the dude a chance this week, but he crapped all over my potential goodwill as soon as he opened the door to greet Tim Gunn, and called him "Tim-licious." Agent Orange went on creep Kenley out in the workroom by staring at her and claiming he was going to eat her. Ok, maybe this guy really IS this wacky, but his antics still reek of "I wanna be a TV star" desperation.

Tim (wearing a fantastic coat) told the designers they'd be going to a NYC hotspot — leading to the usual customary (and wildly inaccurate) speculation (this time by Jerrell — before notifying they that they'd be taking a trip on a blue double decker bus and scouring NYC for inspiration.

Of course, this challenge instantly reminded me of the Season 2 task that had the designers walking around New York for inspiration, but that one took place during the day, so it was totally different (right?!) For extra fun, since this shoot was at night (taking pictures when it's dark is a bitch), we were treated to a few blurry, dizzying images (Terri's made my eyes hurt). Not the best advertisement for that digital camera, which I'm assuming is the reason Tim didn't pimp it while he was introducing the challenge.

The designers were dropped off in groups at Columbus Circle, Times Square, The New York Public Library and Greenwhich Village. Highlights included Stella struggling to work her camera (probably because it's not made out of leather), a lot of pictures of grungy crap that can be found in almost any major city (although New York DOES have more neon), and almost nothing from the NY Public Library group.

We also had Keith (pictured, right), the one person I felt I had a chance of liking this season, stomping around the city with a bad attitude. That wasn't even what disqualified him from me liking the guy this week — it was his "I'm not here to make friends" crack, which is completely overplayed and should earn him a spot here. Oh well, at least he's still the hot one, according to my girlfriend Erica (and everyone else who's watched the show this season). Personally, I agree, but I think he can probably do without the stupid patch of hair on the back of his head.

In the workroom, the designers were busy trying to make magic out of their pictures. I thought Leann was an early frontrunner for her terrific skirt, which she went on to match with a black top. Everyone else, not so much. Joe commented that Kenley's garment looked a bit too "Ft. Lauderdale" (ooh snap, he didn't even say "Miami"), while Jennifer's dress was deemed matronly.

Then Tim Gunn stopped by and the real fun started. After expressing concern that Emily's dress was nothing more than a black dress with a giant corsage over it (foreshadowing), Blayne and Terri decided today would be a good time to introduce Tim Gunn to the phrase, "holla at cha boy" (Not "holler at your boy") Tim Gunn is the absolute best part of the middle portion of these episodes in the workroom because he has absolutely no idea how cool he is.

After a little more drama involving Keith — he found out that his model had to drop out of the competition, and this was a big deal for exactly two seconds — it was time for the runway show.

I love that this program can go from having an Oscar-nominated and well respected actress as a judge one week, and then a "New York City nightlife aficionado" the next. Don't get me wrong because I'm not dissing Sandra Bernhard, who had my favorite reality show title since "charity and campaign worker, Heather Mills."

The judges picked Kenley (sorry Joe), Terri, and Leann for their top three, while choosing Emily, Keith and Jennifer for the bottom three. Blayne (who basically made a louder version of Emily's dress) and Stella (a fugly leather ensemble) should probably thank the editors for showcasing them so much, making them popular and keeping them out of the bottom three.

The judges' winner was Kenley, which I found to be a completely boneheaded decision. I know Michael Kors liked the poofy "80's power bitch" skirt, but Terri's garment (which could protect you from a mugger in a dark alley, according to Bernhard) and Leann's two-piece ensemble (which REALLY looked like one dress) were miles ahead. Leann wuz robbed.

On the other side, the judges killed Keith for his "toilet paper caught in a windstorm" dress (which I kinda liked, though there WAS a body shape issue), but gave him pass. That left Emily's lame black dress with a salmon corsage and Jennifer's frumpy, too-literal dress, with Emily being sent home for being boring. And for designing an ugly dress. But mostly for being boring.

So what'd you think of this episode? Who's your favorite so far? What is the difference between Leann and Jennifer? Finally, will Joe ever wear anything other than a black T-shirt and blue jeans? Holla at cha boy!

Project Runway Rundown: Gang Green

After a somewhat underwhelming premiere, I was looking forward to this week's episode of "Project Runway," hoping I might get to know and warm up to a few of the designers we hastily met last time out.

Unfortunately, this week's installment basically reinforced how annoying most of the people who are getting significant screen time really are. This was hammered home when, less than a minute in, Suede referred to himself in the third person (and it would be far from the last time).

Heidi brought all the designers together to remind them that this was also a competition for the models. She actually reminded me too, because I'd forgotten, since this is the portion of the program I care about the least.

Then again, the models would play a major role in this week's challenge — they were the clients for whom the designers would be creating a cocktail dress using environmentally friendly (or "green" fabric). Also, in a "Project Runway" first, the models would be the ones shopping for the material.

I have mixed feelings about this challenge. I was glad to see not every challenge this season would be a retread of past challenges. On the other hand, I wasn't really too thrilled to see "Project Runway" hop on the "going green" bandwagon. I don't have anything against the environment, but, to me, (and my non-HD TV) the "green" fabrics didn't look any different to me than regular fabrics. I realize it was probably a greater challenge for the designers to work with that material, but it wasn't really that interesting for me to watch. To this straight guy's eye, it just looked like they were designing a cocktail dress with regular fabric. To me, a more interesting "green challenge" would've been to have them create a cocktail dress just using the color green.

Of course, none of this stopped the designers from griping in the workroom, with Jerrell and Stella duking it out for the bitch of the night award early on. Jerrell, who was feeling "salty," worried (for no reason, it turns out) that his model would come back with terrible fabric while Stella was wishing she could work with leather (she must be a big Tori Amos fan) and dreading that her model/client wanted something flowy. Meanwhile, Wesley was wearing a sweater around his shoulders during his confessionals for extra prep.

Not surprisingly, most of the designers were unhappy with their models unimaginative choices, but went to work anyway. When Stella basically decided to ignore her model's wishes and make something fitted, I was sure she'd be up for elimination again.

Elsewhere, Blayne dubbed Heidi Darth Vader/ Darth Licious because she's crazy on the inside, but outside she's all put-together. The comment also gave Blayne a commanding lead for the Lamest Attempt at Humor Award for the year surpassing, well, no one really. I'm giving him the award right now. This guy's trying WAY too hard to be a reality TV personality. Although, I will say when he made light of Stella's leather obsession he came close to making me laugh for the first time on purpose.

He's got solid competition from Suede who was busy tediously cutting strips of his material, but still found time to refer to himself in the third person more times than I care to count. Bravo TV's poll asked which designer had the craziest quirk — Blayne's Tanorexia, Stella's leather fetish, or Suede's third person thing — I was hoping for a fourth option that let me vote for "None of those are 'crazy', they're just incredibly irritating."

Tim's visit was highlighted by his praising of Korto's dress before realizing it wasn't inside out and calling it a hot mess. That — along with the return of the word "caucus" — was my favorite moment of his in a surprisingly Gunn-light episode.

When it was announced that someone from young Hollywood would be the guest judge, I worried it would be someone from "The Hills" because, unfortunately, that's what "young Hollywood" means these days. At least the show still proved it has excellent taste when Oscar-nominated/environmentally-aware/gangsta-rapping actress Natalie Portman ("Where the Heart Is") showed up.

The runway show began and, for the second week in a row, it was difficult for me to get into because there are just way too many damn people right now. That means worthy dresses (like Terri's and Emily's) got ignored, while at least one fugly dress (Jennifer's) caught a lucky break.

The top three were Kenley, Suede and Stella, while the bottom three were Korto, Wesley and Leann. Stella definitely won the most improved award, despite the fact that Natalie "I don't care for asymmetrical design" Portman clearly didn't like it. I was impressed by her ability to strike a balance between her aesthetic and pleasing the client. Kenley impressed the judges with her personality and design, but I liked her flower-like dress better when Daniel Vosovic made it in Season 2. So Suede won, and I have to say I agree — that guy put a ton of work into his garment and made it look easy. The bad news is we have to put up with this guy for another week.

Korto and her fish dress were safe based on her good work last week, so it came down to Wesley and Leann. I was sure Leann would get the boot since her model was the only one to sort of throw her under the bus when asked if she liked her garment. However, Nina Garcia said, "shiny, tight and short is the quickest way to look cheap." All three applied to Wesley's design, while two out of the three applied to his shorts. Buh bye.

So what'd you think of this episode? How did all the designers know all of the models names when they were picking them? (I guess the same way Howie Mandel knows all the models names on "Deal or No Deal.") Is there anyone out there who actually, seriously thinks it's a good idea to refer to themselves in the third person? Do you like ANY of these people? Finally, Suede is a bisexual — riiiight.

Mamma Mia Review

Mamma Mia is not a very good movie — but that doesn't mean you still can't have any fun.

In fact, just "having fun" appears to be the whole premise around which this feature-film adaptation of the Broadway show full of ABBA tunes is built.

The story is paper thin — a young American girl (Amanda Seyfried) invites three men (Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth and Stellan Skarsgard) who were involved with her mother (Meryl Streep) around the same time to her wedding in Greece in hopes of finding out which one of them is her father — and really just a vehicle for the characters to sing ABBA's greatest hits.

I can't pretend I'm a huge ABBA fan. My knowledge of their music is pretty much relegated to "Dancing Queen" and "Take a Chance on Me." Still, there's no denying the relentless energy and catchiness of their tunes and I can see why the stage show has been a huge worldwide hit.

Unfortunately, that doesn't make for a completely smooth transition to film. Neither is the guiding hand of first-time feature director Phyllida Lloyd, who also directed the show on stage.

Too often, the songs appear to pop up and start up out of nowhere. It felt more like, "Hmm, it's been a few minutes since we've had a song, and this one kinda fits," as opposed to letting things happen organically. Worse, there were WAY too many instances in which the songs failed to advance the action at all, and simply served as a showcase for shiny costumes and choreography.

Then again, it was probably the promise of shiny costumes and choreography (as well as a few weeks in that fantastic Grecian scenery) that lured such a talented cast to this project. (The fact that our packed theatre didn't have air conditioning made me feel like I was in Greece with them.)

I think Seyfried ("Mean Girls") is the real find from this cast. She has a strong and lovely singing voice (her opening renditions of "I Have a Dream" and "Honey, Honey" are strong, and she kept her character likable, where she could've easily ventured into whiny territory.

I actually enjoyed the scenes Brosnan, Firth and Skarsgard had with each other a lot more than their scenes with Seyfried or Streep. None of them could really sing that well (especially Brosnan), but I always love to watch actors give it a shot anyway, and the charm and good nature in their performances more than made up for it. (And make sure you stick around for the end credits to catch some more of these guys.)

Meryl Streep established a long time ago that she could pretty much do whatever she wanted, but her performance was a mixed bag for me. Sure, it's a kick to see the Serious, Respected Actress cut loose and sing (very well) and dance to her heart's content and she DOES bring an unexpected emotional depth to a few scenes (a few with her daughter and her performance of "The Winner Takes It All"). But I was surprised at how much I didn't really care for her character Donna and, especially, her relationship with Brosnan and the men.

Or maybe it was because the movie was stolen by Christine Baranski and Julie Walters right out from under her. Baranski and Walters play Tanya and Rosie, Donna's bawdy friends and easily score the film's biggest laughs.

The trio teams up for the film's highlight, a rendition of "Dancing Queen" involving an entire Greek isle. Meanwhile, my two favorite numbers were Baranski's "Does Your Mother Know" and the comedic sequence which accompanied Walters singing "Take a Chance on Me." Unfortunately, those latter two numbers didn't really have anything to do with the movie's main storyline, but were entertaining nonetheless.

It's hard for me to recommend you see a movie that frankly isn't very good. I don't really see this one playing very well on DVD at all, so if you're going to see it, I suggest you see it in theatres with a big group of people — pretty much the way it's been playing ever since the show opened.

It'll be more fun that way.

Mamma Mia...C+

The Dark Knight Review

As the opening date for "The Dark Knight" got closer and closer, I realized that there was really no other movie in my lifetime I was looking forward to seeing as much as this one.

I wasn't obsessed with "Star Wars", so I wasn't one of those (ultimately disappointed) people who camped out at theatres showing "The Phantom Menace" months before the movie's release.

But the more I thought about it, the more I realized just how much I wanted to see this movie. I LOVED director and co-writer Christopher Nolan reboot of the Batman franchise and the way he took it in a simultaneously more realistic and more exciting direction. If that movie had weak links (Katie Holmes and slightly underwhelming action sequences) this movie promised to correct them. The origin story was out of the way (leaving room for more action) and the entire (excellent) cast from "Batman Begins" was coming back, with Maggie Gyllenhaal replacing Holmes and the addition of Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart as the Joker and Harvey Dent, respectively. I mean, wow.

So it's no surprise that "The Dark Knight" absolutely delivers across the board. It delivers as an action movie, as a comic book flick, as a drama, and even as a social commentary.

Christian Bale returns as Bruce Wayne whose crime-fighting alter-ego teams up Lt. James Gordon (Gary Oldman) and the new District Attorney Harvey Dent (Eckhart) to take down Gotham City's organized crime. Batman has also inspired a rash of costume-wearing copycats to take the law into their own hands.

Unfortunately, he's also inspired at least one criminal to step up his game in the person of the Joker (Heath Ledger), during the opening sequence, a clever robbery featuring a weirdly overqualified William Fichtner as a bank manager.

Let's just get this out of the way now — Ledger is absolutely brilliant as the Joker. It's not really fair to compare his take of the character to past interpretations, namely Jack Nicholson in Tim Burton's "Batman". Burton's movie was more stylized and comic book-y, while Nolan's is darker and serious. Each actor's portrayal was in accordance to the movie they're in.

As a result, Ledger's Joker is truly frightening in that he brings an air of anarchy and unpredictability to the character — you feel like this guy can do or say anything at any time, giving all of his scenes excellent tension. Ledger is also incredibly charismatic, making you laugh, even as you're about to fall off the edge of your seat. Ledger's performance is so good and involving, he makes you forget, at least for 152 minutes, about the actor's tragic fate. While scenes like the pencil trick and the instances where he explains where he got his scars will get most of the attention, I was just as impressed by his (relatively) subtler moments, like his interrogation scene and when he convinces Dent not to kill him.

Speaking of Dent, I was pleasantly surprised into how much he figured into this movie's plot. I had assumed the Joker would be the main attraction, with Dent's story mostly being set up for a future movie, but it's actually the Joker who's mostly causing trouble in the periphery while Batman teams up with Dent, Gotham's White Knight, who represents hope for the city and Batman himself. Ledger will get most of the attention, but I thought Eckhart was pretty great. He wholly embodied Dent's goodness without making him seem like a total Boy Scout, and even hinting at the character's darker side.

Bale, as always, is very good. As in "Begins", I enjoyed watching him play Bruce Wayne (now a snobby, A-hole billionaire) than I do Batman, but he brought great intensity to his few scenes with the Joker, in which the latter suggests they're not so different.

The director also upgraded the action sequences from the first movie. I like that Nolan favors smart set-ups and execution (the opening bank robbery) and slam-bang stunt work (a chase through Gotham's streets) over relying mostly on CGI.

With so much going on, the supporting cast was bound to get the short end of the stick. I'd say the lone exception was Gary Oldman as Gordon, who I was delighted to see receive much more screen time. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are complete pros and make more out of their scenes with Bruce Wayne (both have natural chemistry with Bale) than most other actors could.

Since Maggie Gyllenhaal was the one weak link, I realized the problem in "Begins" wasn't so much Katie Holmes as much as it was the character of Rachel Dawes — she comes off as too self-righteous (why is she always lecturing Wayne?) and is just downright annoying and not that likable. It would've been nice if the director and co-writer Jonathan Nolan and David S. Goyer could've come up with a female character we cared about (especially one who allegedly is so important to our hero). I also couldn't always follow what was going on in the plot (though this is most likely due to the fact that I'm not very smart) and they probably could've skipped the trip to China.

Still, I can't be too hard on them, because there's so much more going on in this flick. It's certainly the most ambitious (in its scope, in its ideas) movie about a guy who runs around in tights. Fortunately, Nolan stops the movie just short of feeling too busy (ala "Spider-Man 3").

While "The Dark Knight" is not a perfect film, it's the best superhero movie I've ever seen. It makes even REALLY GOOD superhero films like "Iron Man" and "Spider-Man 2," look like fluff. It's also one of the best movies you'll see this year.

The Dark Knight...A-

What John Thinks: The 2008 Emmy Nominations (Comedy)

As promised here are my thoughts on the comedic nominees. Unfortunately, this appears to be the place where Emmy got really lazy:

Best Comedy: Curb Your Enthusiasm; Entourage; The Office; 30 Rock; Two and a Half Men.

What John Thinks: I swear I don't hate "Two and a Half Men" (as a lot of people seem to). It makes me chuckle pretty often. However, by no stretch of the imagination is it one of the five best comedies. Since "Boston Legal" is a drama, I'd sub it in for "Men". "30 Rock" (pictured, right), which led all regular series with 17 nominations, and "The Office" are two of my favorites, so I'm always glad to see them. I didn't watch this past season of "Curb", but I know it's consistently funny. Still, I would've liked to have seen something fresh in there, like "How I Met Your Mother", "Flight of the Conchords", "Pushing Daisies" or "Chuck" (if it's even considered a comedy). I'd probably give "How I Met Your Mother" that nod.

I mean, it's like the Emmy committee isn't even watching the shows anymore and just nominating them out of habit. What better example than "Entourage"? I'm a fan and I watch all the episodes, but this season was uneven at best. If Emmy wanted to honor an uneven show, I think "Ugly Betty" would've been slightly more deserving. Then again, I would've cut both of them out and slipped in "Desperate Housewives" which almost got back to its first-season high.

Best Actor in a Comedy: Alec Baldwin, 30 Rock; Steve Carell, The Office; Lee Pace, Pushing Daisies; Tony Shalhoub, Monk; Charlie Sheen, Two and a Half Men.

What John Thinks: Carell and Baldwin are two of the best. I've never seen "Pushing Daisies", but from all accounts Pace is a charming lead on a charming little show, so I can't complain too much. I'd take out Sheen in favor of James Spader and "Boston Legal" and I'd take out Tony Shalhoub (who I'm convinced Emmy would nominate even if it turned out he'd been dead the past three years) for, wait for it, Stephen Colbert of "The Colbert Report!" (Stay with me on this one, I'll explain more a bit later.)

Best Actress in a Comedy: Christina Applegate, Samantha Who?; America Ferrera, Ugly Betty; Tina Fey, 30 Rock; Julia Louis-Dreyfus, New Adventures of Old Christine; Mary Louise Parker, Weeds.

What John Thinks: I'm delighted to see Fey and Parker again because I'm a fan of both shows. I'm happy to see Dreyfuss because I think she's great, and delightfully surprised to see Applegate for the charming "Samantha Who." However, as cool as it is that a Latina is headlining a hit show, I'd take out Ferrara for "Ugly Betty" because, well, she's just not that funny (and not as great a straight man as someone like Fey). Instead, I'd sub in a "Desperate" housewife — how about Dana Delaney for helping rescue the show this year?

Best Supporting Actor in a Comedy: Jon Cryer, Two and a Half Men; Kevin Dillon, Entourage; Neil Patrick Harris, How I Met Your Mother; Jeremy Piven, Entourage; Rainn Wilson, The Office.

What John Thinks: Ok, these "Supporting" categories in comedy are so tricky because there are SO many deserving scene stealers. I'm leaving Wilson, Piven (the best thing about Entourage, by far) and Harris in. I like Dillon and Cryer, but there are many more deserving names out there. I'd usually throw in a plug for John Krasinski of "The Office", but I actually feel like Jim didn't have as strong of a year (it was mostly about Pam's growth).

I'd actually put Ed Helms of "The Office" ahead of Krasinski this year, and "Ugly Betty" also has a strong candidate in Marc Urie, but I'd fill those last two slots with Justin Kirk of "Weeds" (who makes gold out of the most ridiculous plots) and Tracy Morgan. Sure, you can argue how much Tracy Morgan actually "acts," and you may not like his style. All I know is that he makes me laugh almost anytime he says anything on "30 Rock" ("Tell her you want your genitals and her genitals to do a high-five").

Best Supporting Actress in a Comedy: Kristin Chenoweth, Pushing Daisies; Amy Poehler, Saturday Night Live; Jean Smart, Samantha Who?; Holland Taylor, Two and a Half Men; Vanessa Williams, Ugly Betty.

What John Thinks: Taylor is arguably the best thing about "Two and a Half Men", but there's no way I'd nominate her over Jenna Fischer of "The Office", so I'd substitute those two. Williams and Chenoweth can stay, and I was pleasantly surprised to see Smart up for this award because she delivers on "Samantha Who."

Let's talk about Amy Poehler. I think it's pretty awesome that someone from SNL could get a nod in a major category like this, instead of being banished to the "Variety, Musical or Comedy Special" award. To be honest, I didn't even know Poehler was eligible. I mean, you're telling me that all this time people like Dana Carvey and Phil Hartman weren't nominated for "Best Supporting Actor" for doing superior work on SNL. Seeing that Poehler IS eligible, that's why I wrote Colbert should pick up a nomination for Best Actor because I can think of fewer performers who do a better job of embodying a character.

The problem I have with Poehler's nomination is that she's not even the female I'd nominate from her own show. If they wanted to recognize an SNL performer, the Emmys would've been wise to nominate the brilliant Kristen Wiig, instead of Poehler, who already has more than enough exposure. On the other hand, if I were looking to fill Poehler's slot with a non-SNL performer, I'd probably look to Jennifer Esposito of "Samantha Who" or Ana Ortiz of "Ugly Betty." Actually, those two are great, but my nod would go to Jane Krakowski, who steals almost every scene she's in on "30 Rock."

What John Thinks: The 2008 Emmy Nominations (Drama)

The nominations for this year's Emmys (which will be broadcast Sept. 21) were released today and, as usual, there was some stuff to like and more than enough stuff to dislike.
For example, a record number of basic cable shows like Mad Men (pictured, left), Damages and Breaking Bad, received nominations in major categories. Unfortunately, we also got a discouraging amount of retreads (mostly in the comedy categories) and nominations mostly based on star power over merit.

The Emmys selection and voting process is notoriously goofy and unpredictable (which make them interesting and infuriating at the same time), so I'll give you my sure-to-be-WAY-off picks at a later date.

I'll get to the comedic categories later, but right now I'll give you my thoughts (as if you asked for them) on the major dramatic series races. (As always, if I want to talk about someone that should've gotten recognition, I have to take one of the nominees out.)

Best Drama: Boston Legal; Damages; Dexter; House; Lost; Mad Men.

What John Thinks: I loved "Lost" and "Damages", and I think "House" finished the season VERY strongly, so I don't have any problem with those two shows being included. I've only ever seen on episode of "Dexter" and I've never seen "Mad Men", but I'm recording the first season, which is airing in its entirety on AMC this Sunday. Finally, I've said it before, but I'll say it again — I'm a fan of "Boston Legal," but it's a comedy, not a drama. As a result, I'd take out "Mad" and "Legal" and sub in "Friday Night Lights" (still strong in second season) and "The Wire" (I personally loved the final season, and don't get the grumblings about it).
Mostly though, I'm just happy "Grey's Anatomy" didn't get a token nomination.

Best Actor in a Drama: Gabriel Byrne, In Treatment; Bryan Cranston, Breaking Bad; Michael C. Hall, Dexter; Jon Hamm, Mad Men; Hugh Laurie, House; James Spader, Boston Legal.

What John Thinks: This is a toughie for me because I haven't really seen Byrne's, Cranston's, or Hamm's work. I know I'd definitely take out Spader in this category (and put him in "Comedy," where he belongs) and put in Kyle Chandler of "Friday Night Lights." I'd also probably take Byrne out and slide Michael Emerson from "Lost" into the lead category to make space in the crowded "Supporting Actor" field.

Best Actress in a Drama: Glenn Close, Damages; Sally Field, Brothers and Sisters; Mariska Hargitay, Law and Order: SVU; Holly Hunter, Saving Grace; Kyra Sedgwick, The Closer.

What John Thinks: It may not be fair because I don't watch any of their shows (except for Close's "Damages", but it feels like Emmy is honoring Hunter, Field and maybe even Sedgwick for coming to TV from movies and classing the place up. Assuming Field and Sedgwick legitimately earned their nods (which is the impression I get), I'd take out Hunter and sub in "Friday Night Lights" much less famous Connie Britton — her and Chandler are the best married couple on TV. I'd also take out Hargitay (sorry, but SVU is just silly now) and put in "Tell Me You Love Me's" Ally Walker or Sonja Walger. You could really flip a coin between those two because they're equally deserving.

Best Supporting Actor in a Drama: Ted Danson, Damages; Michael Emerson, Lost; Zeljko Ivanek, Damages; William Shatner, Boston Legal; John Slattery, Mad Men.

What John Thinks: I'm not touching Danson or Ivanek because they were two of the nominees I was most delighted to see up for the award. Since I moved Emerson to the lead actor category and Shatner would be in the comedic race in my world, I'd sub in Henry Ian Cusick from "Lost" and Clark Johnson from "The Wire" (for absolutely making the final season's newspaper storyline). Since I haven't seen "Mad Men", I'd also take out Slattery (sorry) and put in the excellent Tim DeKay of "Tell Me You Love Me" or Robert Sean Leonard from "House."

Best Supporting Actress in a Drama: Candice Bergen, Boston Legal; Rachel Griffiths, Brothers and Sisters; Sandra Oh, Grey's Anatomy; Dianne Wiest, In Treatment; Chandra Wilson, Grey's Anatomy.

What John Thinks: Not only would I not nominate Bergen in this category because "Legal" is a comedy, but I just don't think she's that great on that show — her role is kind of beneath her. I'd sub in Yunjin Kim of "Lost" in her place. Also, since Sandra Oh wasn't really given anything to do on "Grey's" this year, I'd put Jane Alexander's psychiatrist from "Tell Me You Love Me" in there. Also, I'd probably take out either Griffiths or Wiest and sub in Chloe Sevigny in "Big Love." I've only seen one episode, but she was something fierce.

Project Runway Rundown: Table(cloths) for Too(many of the designers)

You may or may not have heard, but the fifth season of "Project Runway" kicked off last night.

I don't blame you if you hadn't heard because this latest premiere kind of snuck up on me (and I suspect some of you). I'm not saying that I always know what's going on at all times (far from it) , but you'd think a guy who's done episode recaps for the last two seasons (such as moi) would be aware a new season was about to premiere more than a week before it happened.

You've probably heard that this is probably the show's final season on Bravo before it moves to Lifetime in November, so I'm not going to dive into that issue or any conspiracy theories here too much. Some people have whispered that Bravo might lightly sabotage the show (they're losing it anyway), but I'd actually go the other way with that and would like to believe that this season will be strong and have more than its fair share of entertaining "greatest hits" moments, since the show really helped make Bravo.

In fact, we saw that right off the bat with last night's premiere challenge. In a reprise from the series' very first episode, the designers were challenged to make a garment from materials gathered at Gristedes grocery store. Austin Scarlett, that challenge's winner in Season 1, was on hand as guest judge, adding to the feeling of nostalgia. The only noticeable difference was that the designers had $75 to play with this time around instead of $50 (thanks, economy!)

Like last year's premiere, the show bypassed audition episodes and, instead jumped right in with the designers introducing themselves to each other (and us). To me, this is good and bad. It's good because audition/scouting episodes on "Project Runway" are kind of a waste of time — something that looks hideous to me could actually be very chic or couture, and something pretty could just be plain and boring. Also, watching people with ugly dresses just isn't as much fun as listening to people sing badly.

The bad part is that the introductions for the 16 designers felt incredibly rushed, and (without looking on Bravo's site) I barely remember anyone's name. Right off the bat, I thought the black guy seemed cool, I liked the rocker chick (even though she has no chance of winning), thought the African woman seemed interesting, and that the young stubbly guy had promise.

On top of that, most of the people that stood out did so for the wrong reason. These included overly-confident Asian guy, the guy who shamelessly (and creepily) sucked up to Heidi during the rooftop meeting, the overly tanned dude who reminds me of Matthew McConaughey in "Dazed and Confused", and Suede. Tim Gunn has called this the most diverse cast ever — maybe he's referring to the fact that there are not one, but TWO, black women (almost unheard of in mixed gender reality shows).

The rest of the women sort of blended into some weird artsy/quirky, Kit Pistol/Zooey Deschanel mold for me — which is to say none of them really stood out.

Then again, maybe the reason very few people stood out last night in a good way was because they're just not that interesting or creative of a group.

That's certainly the impression we got after watching WAY too many of the designers choose to incorporate table cloth or shower curtains into their designs. In a challenge meant to show a contestant's creativity, it was a disappointing and safe way to go. Fortunately, Tim Gunn told them as much during his visit to the workroom.

Of course, I bet Stella (rocker chick) wishes she had picked up some tablecloth after the garbage bag she chose turned out to be a total waste. Her lack-of-fabric freakout pretty much dominated the screentime during the workroom portion of the episode, but that's fine, because I kind of like her. Maybe she can turn into this year's Sweet P. (who was also eternally flustered). The show also dedicated some time to Jerry's absolutely hideous murderous fisherman outfit (this is where the cockiness started to fade) and Blayne inexplicable outfit (stop trying to make "girlicious" this year's "fierce" dude).

During the runway show, the judges deemed Daniel, Korto and Kelli as the top three, while Jerry, Blayne and Stella were (unsurprisingly) the worst. There were a few other fine garments that I felt were probably disregarded for just being a tablecloth dress. Korto's tablecloth garment, at least, stood out because she was the only one to use fresh produce (I mean, this WAS a supermarket challenge). However, like the judges, I gave the slight edge to Kelli's vaccum bag and bleach minidress over Daniel's plastic cup garment. I can't believe Kelli's dress ended up looking so good.

Of the bottom three, Blayne was spared because his garment was a lot of things, but it wasn't boring (the biggest sin you can commit on this show). That left Stella (who said she'd feel like the biggest jackass in the nation if she went home first) and Jerry (now completely devoid of confidence). Predictably, the judges spared Stella and sent Jerry and his killer dress (see what I did there?) home.

I guess now we know who the biggest jackass in the nation is — at least for one day.

So what'd you think of this episode? Where and how will Blayne tan? Finally, who do you like and who can't you stand already?

For my traditional Ridiculously Early Pick to Win it All, I'm going with Jerell, the former fashion model with a shade of attitude. And since my last two, Ridiculously Early Picks to Win it All have been Rami on last year's "Runway" and Jason Taylor on "Dancing with the Stars", I suggest Jerell prepare his second place speech.

Hell's Kitchen: Scene Stealers

Last night's "Hell's Kitchen" finale was actually a surprisingly filler-free and entertaining hour which heavily spotlighted (for better or worse) two of the show's most colorful personalities.

As an added bonus, the show even found time to crown a winner!

If I had one complaint about Tuesday's finale is that WAY too much of the fourth season's final hour became "The Matt and Jen Try to Outcrazy Each Other" show instead of a contest between two mostly likable and somewhat capable cooks. I mean last week's cliffhanger and the first few minutes of this week's finale were built entirely around the whole "who would get stuck with who" angle, as Petrozza prepared to make his final pick.

Then again, whether you love them or hate them, (who am I kidding — no one could love either of these two) they delivered the goods. And by "goods", I mean unintentional laughs and outrageous comments.

Right before Petrozza picked Jen, I told my girl Erica that I would probably pick Jen because there was a better chance she'd perform well (if only to try to impress Ramsay and show up one of the finalists). As a result, I agreed with Petrozza's choice. That was until Jen opened her big mouth about how she was chosen second to last because Trezzie and Christina were threatened by her. Ugh! That voice. I instantly regretted my theoretical decision.

Meanwhile, Christina thanked the lord and set about expertly manipulating, I mean, winning over Matt, who claimed she'd have to work hard to earn his respect. Of course, all it took was Christina giving him some BS about how he was the inspiration for her risotto (which also resulted in two more classic Matt the Eagle faces).

Despite the fact that Matt and Jen were on them, I actually think the teams worked out perfectly. Petrozza got to work with his boys Bobby and Ben, and I believe he was able to handle Jen a little better than Christina would have. Christina, on the other hand, got to work with Corey, who was also reunited with her totally random/fake HK boyfriend Louross. She also showed that she knew how to handle Matt. Sort of — more on the monkfish fiasco later.

While Christina was busy pulling on Matt's strings, Petrozza's team was questioning the finalist about his preparedness and his messy notes. Ok, it wasn't really Petrozza's team questioning him so much as it was Jen — she likened being on the sloppy chef's team to playing violin on the Titanic. I might've actually laughed if the sound of Jen's voice didn't shred a little piece of my soul every time she said something.

While Petrozza and Christina inspected their kitchen's construction (Christina's looked considerably better, while Petrozza's still looked like it was designed by a straight guy trying to be tasteful), Jen went on to cement her title as the worst person ever. She asked Chef Ramsay for a letter of recommendation. Ramsay shook his head and Corey summed things up in the second most accurately succinct statement of the evening — "I hate her." Me too, Corey. Me too.

Ramsay took a quick look at the finalists' menus and restaurant décor and appeared to be considerably more impressed with Petrozza's more ambitious menu and classy design than he was with Christina's more simple food offerings.

However, during the dinner service, the fact that Christina's menu had stuff that could be more easily cooked worked to her advantage. It meant there was a small chance Matt wouldn't completely screw the pooch. It also meant Bobby struggled early on with Petrozza's more complicated lobster strudel (ick) appetizers.

Fortunately, the appetizer struggles in the blue kitchen would soon come to an end because Trezzie didn't properly prep and he ran out of ingredients for two of his appetizers. Oh wait, that's not good either.

The red kitchen caught up to the blue in terms of sucktitude when Louross fell a bit behind with his salads and had to ask Matt for help. Unfortunately, Matt was moving even slower than usual and had to ask help in making what appeared to be a basic salad, leading Louross to make the most accurately succinct statement of the evening — "Matt sucks." Louross didn't say much last night, but he said it all.

But Matt wasn't done, as he undercooked monkfish twice setting back Christina's kitchen. Fortunately, Christina handled the situation properly, putting enough pressure on Matt so that he did a good job, but not too much that he would completely melt down. In fact, if we're to believe this tricky show's editing, Matt was REALLY getting pissed at Ramsay, repeatedly muttering for the Brit to "shut up and let him cook" under his breath. Again, I'm not really sure all of Matt's comments went down the way they were presented. Then again, Ramsay DID call him a "f---face," causing me to laugh hysterically and to believe Ramsay WAS actually hearing what Matt was saying.

Personally, I'm not sure I could've cooked a monkfish any better than Matt (ok, I probably could have), but I KNOW I could've cooked a single onion ring in less time than it appeared to take Jen. Though he handled himself decently, Petrozza appeared more flustered than Christina in the kitchen when things went south.

The service ended with more highs than lows and Ramsay was off with his customer comment cards to make his "difficult" decision.

He called Trezzie and Christina to his office and had each stand in front of a door. One would open to confetti and a champagne shower, and the other would, um, not open, meaning the person behind the second door would have to use the winner's door to get to the confetti and champagne shower.

Lo and behold, Christina actually won this thing! I was legitimately surprised. Ramsay REALLY seemed a lot more impressed with Petrozza's menu and design. Also, he was just such a nice guy and had paid his dues.

Then I thought about it, and I remembered that Christina had won an insane amount of challenges (including an unprecedented three individual challenges in a row). She's also at the start of her career and probably has more potential — plus, whoever is REALLY in charge of the restaurant she'll pretend to be running will have a much easier time telling her what to do.

Also, just last year, Ramsay had chosen the more experienced chef over the blond upstart (Rock over Bonnie) and methinks reality shows try to avoid repeating themselves whenever they can.

Anyway, that was the conclusion of the very entertaining fourth season of "Hell's Kitchen" and the first season of this HK recap. Thanks for reading my nonsense and I hope I see you here next summer.

So what'd you think of the finale? Did the right person win? (Not according to the poll on my blog.) Did Ben contribute ANYTHING to last night's episode? (I was secretly hoping Ramsay would torture him, just a little, for old time's sake.) Finally, you've had about a month to think about this — is there ANYONE worse than Jen?

Hancock Review

Since original ideas appear to be in short supply, I'd rather a movie take chances rather than resort to the predictable (or simply do what's been done before) 100% of the time.

With that in mind, I was interested in seeing "Hancock," not just because it was the 4th of July weekend and I suspect we've all been secretly implanted with chips that make us go see Will Smith movies on this holiday, but because it seemed to offer a new take on the "superhero movie."

Unfortunately, what started as a great idea (a superhero gets a publicist to help with his image) and a solid movie, eventually devolves into a mostly muddled and overwrought mess.

Smith plays John Hancock, a depressed and perpetually-drunk Los Angeles resident with superpowers who tends to cause too much damage while saving lives. One of the lives he saves is that of Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman), an idealistic public relations executive who offers to help Hancock with his reputation, despite protests from his wife Mary (Charlize Theron).

As I mentioned before, the movie starts out strongly, balancing the development of Hancock's isolated asshole of a character ("asshole" is the movie's description, not mine) with the action and humor you'd expect from a big summer movie like this one.

I loved the idea that we take for granted that all superheroes are going to be, you know, heroic. The idea that he would join forces with a publicist is also very clever and current in this day and age of spin.

Smith follows his turn in "I Am Legend" with his second consecutive strong performance in a Big movie. It's not the easiest thing for the Biggest Movie Star in the World to convincingly play a bum (or for someone as charismatic as Smith to play an asshole), but Smith commits to the role, conveying his character's frustration and loneliness. Of course, since this is Will Smith we're talking about, he also gets his share of one-liners.

Most of them come in scenes with Bateman, who is also very effective, particularly in the scenes where he and Hancock devise a strategy for improving the hero's image. Although his character is very idealistic, Bateman mostly retains the understated and snarky delivery he perfected on "Arrested Development."

Bateman's "AD" co-star (I guess she's also known as an Oscar winner) Charlize Theron also turns in a strong performance, despite issues I had with her storyline. I was curious as to what she would do in the movie, since she was mostly and conspicuously absent from trailers for the film.

Indeed, she takes more of a central role when the twist you've probably heard about (but I won't spoil here) arrives.

I don't have any problem with a movie not turning out to be exactly what I expected. (For example, I loved that I had no idea "Unbreakable" turned out to be what it was.) The problem I had was that, in this case, the movie appeared to exhaust it's "down-on-his-luck superhero with a publicist" premise, realized that stuff was only good for about an hours' worth of screen time, and quickly cobbled together a third and final act.

Director Peter Berg — helming his first mega-budget, special effects action movie — also didn't succeed at handling the tonal shift that comes along with the twist. The light comedy from earlier in the film almost completely disappears in favor of melodrama. The balance of comedy and drama worked for the film in the first two-thirds, but completely collapses when the scale tips firmly toward drama in the finale.

It also would've been nice if Berg had used a bit more subtlety — from the moment Hancock and Mary lay eyes on each other, a blind man could've seen there was something up. (I much preferred the more discreet way Ron Howard set up his game-changing twist in "A Beautiful Mind.")

The action sequences also left plenty to be desired. I know this is supposed to be an action COMEDY, but, with a few exceptions, the effects often looked stupid, as opposed to awe-inspiring. The movie also suffers from the same thing that plagues many superhero movies — the lack of a strong adversary for the protagonist (here, we get some loser with a hook).

Then again, maybe I'm just mad at Berg for overusing tight closeups and his shaky cam since I was stuck in the third row and I'm pretty sure it made my girlfriend sick.

While it ultimately ends up being a bit disappointing, I applaud "Hancock" for its strong performances and the filmmakers for at least trying something new.

Hancock...C+

Random Thought of the Moment: Crowded Movie Theatre Edition

So Erica and I went to the movies this past weekend to see "Hancock" (though not dressed like THAT) and we got there while the coming attractions were still playing.

She stopped off to use the restroom and I went into the theatre to grab a couple of seats from us. Of course, this being a the 4th of July weekend (and "Hancock" being a Will Smith movie) the theatre was pretty packed, which was to be expected, especially since we showed up semi-late.

Still, the theatre wasn't COMPLETELY packed and what I saw was infinitely more infuriating. (Start of rant) What I saw was scattered, empty single seats available throughout the entire theatre. You know how it is because we've all done it — you're at the movies with your date or friends, and you see another group of people seated in your row, but instead of sitting directly next to them, you leave one seat open.

Here's my random thought of the moment: move the f--- over! I mean, why are we really leaving that seat open? Are we that afraid of human contact? Unless the person next to you has a serious case of body odor, there's no reason you can't sit next to them. And if you don't want to sit directly next to someone, at least leave TWO empty seats of space so that a couple who shows up a little later can sit together. I mean, what is the point of leaving ONE open seat? You're taking away a seat in a crowded theatre, and if someone DOES sit in that empty seat you've left, there's a good chance it's going to be some creepy loner.

Now you can say to me, "Buck you, fuddy — why don't you just show up earlier?" and you'd have a fair point (Ok, that would probably be the first time ANYBODY said "buck you, fuddy.") I would say to you that, if there are more than enough empty seats available in a theatre, there's no reason we can't all enjoy the movie comfortably.

Just remember: next time, it could be YOU that has to sit in the third row for a movie in which the director favors woozy camera angles and tight closeups (thanks Peter Berg!)

(End of rant.)

Hell's Kitchen: A Hell of a Decision

I was really looking forward to last night's season finale of "Hell's Kitchen" in which we had two closely-matched and very likable (at least by reality TV standards) facing off for the top prize.

Then, about 15 minutes before the show was due to start and right about the time the woman on "Moment of Truth" was admitting to cheating on all of her ex-husbands, I realized that last night's episode would only be the first half of the season finale. Ugh. I felt like a complete idiot.

This was especially embarrassing after I mercilessly mocked the contestants last week for not knowing their "Hell's Kitchen" history and not being prepared for their challenges. It turns out I didn't know my HK History either (I skipped that class in college) since splitting your reality TV season finale into two is one of the oldest tricks in the book and is something the show did just last year.

Needless to say, I was a little grumpy throughout last night's episode. And that was before I realized the episode would be ridiculously stuffed with filler (though not quite as ridiculous as stuffing a pumpkin with a hen).

Allow me to break down the numbers a bit. Usually, when you take out commercials, you get about 44 minutes of content for an hour-long prime time series. Last night's show didn't even start until 9:12 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) after a recap of the season and opening credits. Add in about three minutes worth of additional flashbacks to past events throughout the hour, and you have 15 minutes of nothingness (i.e., stuff we've already seen). That means out of the hour I was watching "Hell's Kitchen" last night, only about 29 minutes of it was anything new. It was almost as bad as watching an "American Idol" results show.

To make things worse, a lot of the "new" stuff was Christina and Petrozza trying to find different ways to say "I can't believe it's down to the final two" and "I deserve to win "Hell's Kitchen." Fortunately, as I already mentioned, our two finalists are very likable and (gasp!) appear to get along, making it easy to root for both of them and the chase for the title more interesting.

Chef Ramsay informed the duo they'd each have to design one half of "Hell's Kitchen" to their liking and come up with their own menu.

Christina impressed right away, having a clear idea of her menu (her choosing food that people know and like is a good start) and staying up late to finish it. Meanwhile, Petrozza scribbled "Light sauteed"- something on his notepad, struggled to come up with much more and called it a night.

The next day Christina had equally strong convictions about her design concepts, asking for a "simple, but elegant" aesthetic and approving striped wallpaper. Petrozza, who does nothing but cement his stature as the nicest guy on reality TV, babbled incoherently, but enthusiastically about sweetbread and lots of flowers. He was also very receptive to having his wait staff dressed as chefs (making Jean-Philippe happy), while Christina HATED that idea and wanted them all dressed in black leading to some passive-aggressive bitchiness from Jean-Philippe. I guess we know who he's rooting for.

Later, both chefs presented their menus (Chef Scott didn't humor Petrozza nearly as much as the designer guy did, but still went along with things) before being called by Ramsay into his office. Ramsay said he didn't think he had the right two finalists, (commercial break) he KNEW he had the right two finalists. Seriously, what was the point of that? Why not just hand them a $20 bill and then snatch it away while we're being cruel? At least Ramsay made up for it by flying them to New York in his private jet.

Christina grabbed one of her shiny new Rodeo Drive outfits, while Petrozza finally got to wear the one suit permanently tucked away in his luggage since he hardly won any rewards, and they were off.

After a brief stop at Times Square (I guess no one who was there cared enough to put the two finalists' names online), the chefs went to Ramsay's "London" restaurant in Manhattan (got that?). They were introduced to the eatery's executive chef, Josh (who looked like "Dancing with the Stars" Tony Dovolani to me) and asked to cook their signature dish.

Christina made aNew York strip with sweet corn succotash, while Petrozza opted for a filet mignon with caramelized onion risotto (and I lamented the alarming lack of hen and/or pumpkin in his signature dish). Christina was obscenely cocky the entire time (making fun of Petrozza's culinary paintbrush) which automatically let me know she would lose. Still, when she rallied back to tie the taste test at two after Petrozza took the early lead, I got a little nervous. In the end, Petrozza was the winner and got first pick for the final dinner service.

Before choosing teams, Christina had a minor freakout over her restaurants designs, which, to be fair, looked sort of brutal. I also enjoyed watching Petrozza just cluelessly fawn over his and Christina's design. The designer could've incorportated the design of a particularly nice Burger King and Petrozza would've loved it.

At the end of the hour, six past contestants — Bobby, Corey, Louross, Ben, Matt and (shudder) Jen — walked in and it was time to pick teams.

In my opinion, Petrozza squandered the first pick by picking Bobby. I can understand why he did it. It WAS Bobby after all who brought Petrozza back after Trezzie had his "I'm done" meltdown, but I believe he should've chosen Corey, the best of the rest. I also think, if Petrozza takes Corey first, that Christina wouldn't necessarily pick Bobby second (she'd probably go with Louross or Ben), so Petrozza could've had Bobby either way with the third pick. Instead, Corey fell into Christina's lap (and they DO work terrifically together). Petrozza then picked Ben (despite the creepy wink from creepy Matt) and Christina went with Louross.

As the hour closed, Petrozza had to decide between Matt and Jen. Actually, he really had to decide who he wanted to stick Christina with. On one hand, there's Matt, who's legitimately insane, pretty sweaty and kind of a bad cook. On the other, there's Jen, who is a decent cook, but is also destructive, vindictive, sneaky and the most annoying person in the whole world. I mean, she wasn't even back for five seconds before she said she was better than her competitors and was there to make Ramsay second-guess his choice. Double Ugh!

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think I would actually pick Jen if I were Petrozza. She says she wants to prove Ramsay wrong, so maybe that means she'll work really hard and deliver a good service. Then again, that may mean she'll undermine you at every turn and make herself shine while taking you down in flames. I mean, at least with her, there's a chance she'll be good, right? Right?!

So what'd you think of this episode? Is there a more generic description than "simple, but elegant"? (I mean, who DOESN'T like "simple, but elegant"?) What, exactly, was the point of having Whoopi Goldberg (pictured, right, with Ramsay and the finalists) stop by? Who do you think is going to win next week? Are Christina and I the only ones who aren't really sure where Dubai is? More importantly, who would you rather get stuck with on your team? Matt or Jen?

Wall•E Review

Who knew the best big-screen love story in years would actually play out between two robots with almost no dialogue?

We keep waiting for Pixar to stumble and produce a less than excellent film and — well, we're all still waiting.

(I'd actually argue "Cars" could be seen as a minor stumble, at least quality wise. Then again, that movie IS cute and really just subpar only according to Pixar standards. Also any animated movie that makes $460 million worldwide is automatically not a stumble.)

Needless to say, "Wall•E" carries on Pixar's winning streak and instantly becomes one of the best movies of the year.

The story is set several hundred years in the future. An overly contaminated Earth has been abandoned in favor of space by humans. The only living things left appear to be a cockroach and Wall•E, a trash-collecting robot whose name stands for Waste Allocation Load Lifter: Earth Class.

Though Wall•E's not technically a living being, he has picked up human traits during his mostly solitary time on Earth (we're not sure exactly how long he's been around). The early scenes with Wall•E dutifully compacting trash and collecting trinkets for his, um, apartment do an excellent job of establishing the character's curious, kind and friendly personality and the loneliness he feels. The mostly dialogue-free sequence is also a master class in how to tell a story through music and (stunning) visuals.

Wall•E eventually gets some company when a sleeker robot we come to know as EVE lands on the planet. Without giving too much away, Wall•E and EVE end up embarking on an adventure which affects all of humanity and the entire planet — yet the coolest thing about the movie is that stuff hardly matters.

The real attraction is the love story between Wall•E and EVE. The animators do a tremendous job in basically showing us how two robots can possibly fall in love. I love the way they animate Wall•E and EVE's eyes, even though EVE's eyes are nothing more than blue lights. They also show the characters connecting through simple gestures humans take for granted, like holding hands.

Most importantly, the movie makes us care for the bond between the two by, you know, spending an almost unheard-of amount of time on developing the characters and allowing the audience to get to know them. There's no sassy best friend, or disapproving parents or misunderstandings between the two, just their slow, growing affection for each other. We also get attached to them, as evidenced by the multitude of misty eyes in my packed theatre on Sunday.

By the way, I don't mean to sound like "Wall•E" is exactly "Love Story." Though Pixar specializes in making movies that appeal to everyone (including adults), this is still a kids' flick and thoroughly succeeds on that front.

The lead character is absolutely adorable, and his interaction with human products is good stuff. I also liked how trigger happy and overly abrasive EVE was before Wall•E softened her metallic heart.

The movie also includes some good satire about where humans are headed as a society (hint: we're getting lazier) and manages to slip in an environmental message without beating us over the head with it.

If I have one small critique is that, while there's nothing really wrong with the movie, it just didn't feel as special as some of Pixar's other efforts. Maybe it was because there's really no strong antagonist to overcome or (by design) not as many quotable lines or catchphrases, but as much as I liked this movie, I don't really see it holding a special place in my heart like "Toy Story", "Ratatouille" (my favorite movie from last year).

That's not to say this movie isn't wildly successful on its own merits. Here's hoping the Academy takes a real hard look at this one come Oscar season and doesn't stupidly automatically discount it because there's a "Best Animated Feature" Oscar (foreign films seem to have a slightly easier time in the more mainstream categories).

I think some people tend to forget animation is not a genre (like comedy, drama, horror), it's a medium by which you can tell any number of stories (like comedies, dramas and horror). Just because something is animation, doesn't automatically mean it's just a "kids' movie."

Is "Wall•E" a kids' movie? Yes. Is it also a beautiful love story that just happens to be animated? Yes! Am I going to stop asking and answering my own questions and just give this thing a grade already? Oh, alright.

Wall•E...A