HOOT (2006): A Story About "Sense of Place" that Has No Place in My Heart

Nothing is more American than moving from place to place, wandering from city to city, and following the new job to the new state. America's history of movement into the "frontier" was the driving force behind Fredrick Jackson Turner's book about the American character. Americans, it can almost be said, are a people with no sense of permanency and no sense of "home." Almost, because though Americans seem to ever be seeking the greener valley just over the hill, they also create art that represents the longing for "place" central to the human condition.

The central conflict in HOOT is a young man's pursuit of permanency and his need to feel a sense of place. Roy Eberhardt (Logan Lerman) is a boy who has attended 6 schools in the past 8 years as his father's job with the Department of Justice has required frequent moves. Just as the family gets settled in a new location, just as Roy feels at home, they move again -- most recently from Montana to Coconut Grove, Florida.

The film is adapted from Carl Hiaasen's novel of the same name (HOOT was Hiaasen's first venture into writing for younger readers). In all of Hiaasen's novels, the setting is as important as any of the quirky characters his readers encounter. The same goes for HOOT.

Upon arriving in Coconut Grove, Roy encounters the stereotypical bully Dana Matherson (Eric Philips) who mashes Roy's face against the school bus window on the trip to school. It is this action that introduces one of two interesting characters in the film, a homeless and barefoot environmentalist middle-schooler named Mullet Fingers. The character's origin is as implausible as his name. While Mullet's character concept is quirky enough to be memorable, Cody Linley's performance in the role leaves one wishing they could forget the character. Roy also meets a bully-bashing girl named Beatrice (Brie Larson) who, as it turns out, just happens to be Mullet Fingers' step-sister. Larson's performance is mixed. Early in the film, her acting seems forced, but as the character develops in the narrative Larson displays the ability to capture the changes. These three characters, leaving the bully aside, don't become "fast friends," but as the adventure unfolds they do become friends.

The film is filled with many quirky characters, from Muckle (Clark Gregg) the sinister Southeastern Regional Manager of Mother Paula's All-American Pancake House to Delinko (Luke Wilson) the absentminded law enforcement officer. Gregg's performance makes the error made all too often in "children's movies," it's way to over the top. Luke Wilson, on the other hand, is solid. Wilson could have resorted to a Barney Fife style performance, but he holds back and the audience is rewarded with a couple of laughs -- desperately needed laughs.

In addition to the human characters, there are owls and the owls are in trouble. And this brings us to the conflict that moves the narrative along. Muckle wants to build a brand new Mother Paula's All-American Pancake House on a lot that includes homes of a number of families of burrowing owls. Roy, Beatrice, and Mullet Fingers take it upon themselves to fight against Muckle's destruction of the owl burrows. Mullet Fingers' preferred method of undermining the construction project is a series of pranksteresque that are supposed to dissuade the corporation from building on the site and that is where fun is supposed to ensue. Sadly, Mullet Fingers methods are as illogical as they are unfunny.

First, our environmentalist hero places a gator in the construction site's port-o-potty. That's right, in the chemicals -- chemicals that I would think at least mildly harmful to a two-foot long gator. Mullet then uses Cotton Mouth Water Moccasins to scare away guard dogs, by letting the snakes loose on the construction site...where the owls live. I don't know if releasing snakes into a field full of potential food is a good idea either. Needless to say, Mullet's ideas don't have the desired effect and the destruction of the burrows is going to take place anyway. That is until Roy, using the legal system, discovers that the Pancake company has altered their environmental impact report and that their construction is illegal. This knowledge will provide him the opportunity to save the owls, if only he can stop Muckle's bulldozer in time.

Wil Shriner, who has a great deal of television directing experience on some very good sitcoms and dramadies, seems a little out of his depth in his adaptation of the story. Shriner seems, like the middle of this review, too caught up in the "fun" of the pranksteresque attempts of Mullet Fingers and looses site of the real conflict here. The real story is that the owls and Roy are subject to the same conflict, displacement. Roy sympathizes, as the audience should, with the owls not merely because of environmental reasons (the law is already on his side), but because they are going to be uprooted like he has been 6 times in the past 8 years. This is a story about place and the value place has in our lives. If Roy can save the owls' home, maybe -- just maybe -- he can finally find a home. In a couple of sequences, Michael Chapman (the DP) captures the beauty of Coconut Grove, but these images are lost in the director's focus on the protest rather than on the longing to belong.

It's sad. There's a great story there somewhere, but in focusing on the external conflict -- the secondary conflict -- Shriner misses the opportunity to give his actors a chance to give real performances rather than pantomimes. Instead, audiences are left with a fairly standard children's movie. It's safe, it's mildly amusing, but it doesn't delight.

RATING: 2.5/5 Stars

Cinerati Lexicon #1: Filmic Cultural Selectivity

In yesterday's discussion of the origin of the Cinerati blog, it was mentioned that the first post contained "an attack on filmic cultural selectivity" without describing what was meant by filmic cultural selectivity. One imagines that most readers can decipher the meaning of the phrase, it isn't to arcane, but one should never assume understanding. Additionally, one of my goals in rebooting the website was to share not merely my thoughts about modern films and the state of modern criticism, but to share my ideas and my personal terminology with the world in the hopes of creating meaningful dialog.

What do I mean by filmic cultural selectivity?

Filmic Cultural Selectivity

Filmic cultural selectivity, is a logical error which frequently occurs in the discussion of film where the reviewer selectively chooses high quality films from a particular culture and compares them to another culture to express the superiority of the chosen culture. Such selectivity only actually falls into the category of logical error when the critic, in mentioning the quality of one culture, intentionally and knowingly excludes the existence of any lower quality (or fun exploitation) films within the given culture.

Below are some examples, one specific and one imagined, of this error in criticism:

Example #1 (the specific example):

Thomas Hibbs piece discussed yesterday (Kurosawa Kills Bill. In the piece, Hibbs damns American films as "vulgar distortions of Japanese film culture." He then follows this assertion with a list of Akira Kurosawa films which he presents as possibly representative of Japanese film culture. Nowhere in the piece does he mention lesser works of Japanese cinema. Nor does he mention the influence of Western genre films on the work of Kurosawa. Certainly he mentions a Western influence, Shakespeare, but he leaves out Dashiell Hammett and the influence of Film Noir on Kurosawa. He elevates Kurosawa (deservedly), and Japanese cinema in general (less deservedly), to a "high art" status while attacking American cinema as vulgar. As my response points out, Japanese cinema runs the gamut of quality by the standard set forth by Hibbs.

Example #2 (a proposed example):

You and a friend, who happens to be a respected film critic, are discussing your favorite films. You make the "mistake" of mentioning a mainstream blockbuster film among your list of great films. Your friend responds and a dialog begins:

CRITIC FRIEND

That's such a typical American answer which demonstrates your lack of familiarity with Italian cinema, which are in every way superior to American films. Have you never seen LA STRADA or 8 1/2? The Italian directors have a much greater understanding of the human experience than American directors who have been corrupted by commercialism and who seek only to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Being ready for your friend's tendency to engage in filmic cultural selectivity, you are able to respond in a mocking tone.

YOU

That's so true. Sergio Corbucci's SUPER FUZZ truly captured the underlying conflict between the personal and professional of the modern law enforcement officer. And Ruggero Deodato's CANNIBAL HOLOCUAST is a "well respected" representation of indigenous cultures.

You didn't even mention DIABOLIK or get into how anyone who defends the social commentary merits of CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, while simultaneously excoriating HOSTEL, is not only practicing filmic cultural selectivity, they are also being highly inconsistent...unless they also defend Wes Craven's THE HILLS HAVE EYES then their opinions are a little more complicated.

My point in saying that filmic cultural selectivity is a problem isn't to assert that American film is the best film making in the world. I am willing to listen to well-informed experts on other cultures films who advance the merits of that culture's films. The understanding of film only benefits from such a dialogue. I am merely asserting that one must acknowledge the bad with the good, it can only make your argument stronger if you are correct in your comparison. Had Hibbs mentioned BATTLE ROYALE, or any Chambara films, in his essay -- or had he mentioned RED HARVEST and THE GLASS KEY as inspirational to Kurosawa's YOJIMBO -- it might have actually made his argument stronger.

As for our imaginary film critic friend (and the one above is completely imaginary), I actually do like SUPER FUZZ...mostly for childhood nostalgia reasons. And while CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST is not at all culturally sensitive to indigenous peoples, it has strong proponents both inside and outside the horror field. As for DIABOLIK, don't just watch the MSTK 3000 version. John Philip Law, my second favorite Sindbad, is quite entertaining in this film. Don't even get me started on how much I love cheesy Hercules movies.

Cinerati Reboot

In late December of 2003, I read an article at National Review Online (Kurosawa Kills Bill) discussing the relative lack of merit of the films Kill Bill vol. 1 and The Last Samurai. After reading the article, I realized that many film critics, including most conservative film critics, and I were having very different experiences when we watched movies in the theater.

It took me almost three months to draft a response that I thought was appropriate, and on March 16th 2004, the Cinerati blog had its first post published on the internet. The post was a direct response to Thomas Hibbs NRO piece, a defense of the films mentioned, an attack on filmic cultural selectivity, and my first foray back into criticism after leaving a roughly monthly shared film review column in the Sparks Daily Tribune titled Celluloid Say-So when I left for graduate school in 2000.

At the time, I had intended Cinerati to be a film discussion blog where friends of mine and I would share our thoughts on film and on the state of film criticism. It quickly became something else. The community of posters I had always desired quickly dwindled down to me, with an occasional post by another Cinerati member. And what was originally intended to be a site which focused primarily on films, ended up a site with far more commentary about games, comics, and more games. In short, Cinerati quickly grew away from its name and its purpose. This, combined with the fact that posting has been slow of late and some new encounters with film reviews, inspired me to reboot the site.

Gone will be mentions of roleplaying games, video games, comic books, etc. Those will be reserved for the Geekerati blog. From now on, this site will be devoted to discussion of movies and television. In particular, this site will engage with other critics of film and television. There are enough "review" sites on the internet, in fact there is a glut. Too much time is being spent evaluating the "narratives" of film and not enough is spent evaluating the "art" of films. What is needed is a site that examines what is being said about film and television and examines whether what is being said is meaningful.

Over the next few days, there will be a series of columns discussing the direction of the site, the types of columns that will be written, and examining what the proper roles of criticism are when it comes to film and television. Additionally, there will be discussions of the particular terminology, or turns of a phrase, that I will use from time to time.

In fact, my very next post will be a brief post highlighting what I mean when I say or write filmic cultural selectivity.

But first, let's have a look at that first post:

In the Shadow of Kurosawa

By Christian Johnson (now Christian Lindke)

I can still remember the first time I saw Rocky Horror Picture Show. There I was, a “virgin” watching rolls of toilet paper flying and getting wet from squirting water when I realized that I was sitting surrounded by an audience that didn’t “get it.” Here they were talking, mocking, and interacting with a film that was hilarious on its own merits. Somewhere in all the chaos I managed to watch a parody of some of my favorite classic Hollywood horror films. I had a similar, though drier, experience when I watched John Waters' Cecil B. Demented in a theater full of people who didn’t know who William Castle was.

I experienced the same frustration when I read Thomas Hibbs’ recent article regarding Quentin Tarantino’s most recent film Kill Bill vol. 1 and the Tom Cruise blockbuster The Last Samurai (Kurosawa Kills Bill). In particular, I took issue with his claim that “despite their critical acclaim and their purported desire to be faithful to Japanese sources, these films are but vulgar distortions of Japanese film culture, especially the work of Akira Kurosawa.” I was surprised by my reaction because I have more respect for Professor Hibbs than I do for most of the celebrated “cinerati” who, like me, enjoyed these two films. You see, I think that the Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Culture is on to something with regards to America’s elites having a disturbing affection for nihilism, the subject of his book Shows About Nothing. So my reaction did not originate from a disagreement about the merits of these films with regard to virtue or an expression of human excellence. To be fair, I don’t know what his opinions are regarding The Last Samurai as a film about virtue, but I have a fair idea regarding Kill Bill. My frustration stemmed from his accusation that these films were “distortions” of a genre “especially” the work of Akira Kurosawa.

This led me to ask two questions. First, are these films a “distortion of Japanese film culture?” Second, are these films “especially” referencing the work of Akira Kurosawa? I refuse to address any other of the statements made in Hibbs’ article because they provide a wonderful introduction to the works of an inspirational filmmaker -- he provides a valuable list of Kurosawa must sees, though he surprisingly leaves out High and Low. I also think that Hibbs was remiss in not mentioning Chushingura by Hiroshi Inagaki as another wonderful film about feudal Japan.

Kill Bill is exactly what it purports to be, a celebration of Japan’s b-movies in the Chambara genre (and to some extent the Wuxia and Kung Fu films of Hong Kong). While Akira Kurosawa’s films (among them Sanjuro, Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, Ran) are great films about Samurai culture, they do not stand alone as the only films from Japan about the feudal era nor are they in the b-list of this genre. Tarantino’s film is closer in tone to the Lone Wolf and Cub and Zatoichi films, but he adds the bloodiness of the films of Kinji Fukasaku whose recent film Battle Royale (based on the book of the same name) is a brutal combination of Lord of the Flies and the Survivor television show. One need only watch a few Sonny Chiba (who stars in Kill Bill and is referenced in True Romance) films to understand that Japan, like America, has an appetite for graphic violence. You cannot claim that a film is a vulgar distortion of a culture based on a case study, a more random sample is needed. I think that if Professor Hibbs takes a random sample of Japanese cinema post 1970, he will find more Hanzo the Blade than Throne of Blood.

Typical of Tarantino, any celebration requires examples of a genre’s influence on Western film. So we have a perverted “Charlie's Angels,” called the DiVAs, based on the Five Deadly Venoms by the Shaw Brothers. We have the exaggerated camera use similar to Sergio Leone used in the fight scene between Uma Thurman and Lucy Liu (the snow covered ground of which directly references the final fight in Chushingura). Tarantino gives us the Tokyo of Black Rain and Godzilla visually reminiscent of the Los Angeles of Blade Runner. We hear the theme song to The Green Hornet, and Ironsides, and Uma Thurman dressed like Bruce Lee in Game of Death. Through his director’s eye the audience sees the way Western movies, largely b-movies, have influenced Japanese b-movies, which have in turn influenced Western b-movies. We are presented with a dialogue, not a distortion, between two arguably vulgar cultural representations of the action genre.

The Last Samurai is more difficult to defend from Professor Hibbs’ criticism. While the film is infinitely less vulgar than Kill Bill, Edward Zwick appears to be imitating rather than celebrating what he thinks a film about feudal Japan should look like. The palette is reminiscent of Ran as is the tragic nature of its Japanese protagonist. The Last Samurai isn’t a film about feudal Japan, rather it is a film about how an American reacts and views feudal Japan. The framing device makes it apparent that we are watching the memories of an American Civil War veteran struggling to understand Japanese culture. The director has the difficult task of combining genre and cultural messages. How do you balance the need to show both Western and Eastern concepts of military virtue? How do you do this through the eyes of a character who has forgotten Classical virtue and is a product of Machiavellian prudential virtue?

The conflicts for Cruise’s character prevent the director from fully utilizing the Japanese cultural setting and so he abbreviates it. There are moments in the film when Cruise’s character is given advice from the Book of Five Rings a classic samurai text. The advice given him to him regarding sword fighting mirror advice from the 2nd chapter of the Hagakure (published in 1716 at a time when Japan’s Samurai class had experienced 100 years of relative peace), “There is surely nothing other than the single purpose of the present moment. A man's whole life is a succession of moment after moment. If one fully understands the present moment, there will be nothing else to do, and nothing else to pursue. Live being true to the single purpose of the moment.” The Last Samurai converts the advice into a physical representation during one particular duel between Cruise and a number of ruffians. The camera’s eye captures a perfect combination of single-minded concentration and void.

In the end though, these arguments regarding the merits of Kill Bill and The Last Samurai as examples of Western art encountering Japanese art may be unconvincing to the viewer who might believe that these films represent how we have come to “prefer sorrow over pain, suffering over peace.” To that viewer I can only offer the following.

My first example is one of hope. It is the moment in The Last Samurai when Katsumoto tells Nathan Algren that one could do worse than to spend one’s life looking for the perfect blossom. In this moment, we are told that the pursuit of beauty is a better profession than the pursuit of war.

The second example is one of caution, for it shows that man’s love of pain and suffering over peace isn’t a new one. It is a quote from the 10th chapter of the Hagakure, “If you cut a face lengthwise, urinate on it, and trample on it with straw sandals, it is said that the skin will come off. This was heard by the priest Gyojaku when he was in Kyoto. It is information to be treasured.”

If the first moment is merely a pretentious effort to seem profound, maybe we truly have abandoned the pursuit of a summum bonum. I dread a world in which it is “not the natural sweetness of living but the terrors of death [that] make us cling to life.”

Fanboy Meets Hellboy

I am a fan of both Hellboy (comics, rpg, and films) and Chuck, so I really couldn't ask for more than this Hellboy II preview.

Okay, I could ask for more. I could ask that Chuck be reassigned the the BPRD. Like that will ever happen.

(via SF Signal I really have to ask those folks to be on my podcast some time.)

Sporadic Geek Update (7/7/08)

Inspired by Professor Nokes' "Morning Medieval Miscellany," I bring you the Sporadic Geek Update. Since the arrival of my lovely twin daughters, it has been next to impossible to post on this blog regularly. For that, I apologize. Between the all-consuming endeavor that is newborn fatherhood, researching a series of posts about film criticism (which I intend to begin this week), and hosting a weekly podcast, I have struggled to find time to write. I fully intend to find a way to better balance my time and provide you with my thoughts on popular culture on a regular basis.

Excuses having been given, let's check out today's Sporadic Geek Update:

• Gizmondo gives us a look at what the future of television might look like, if it is left up to AT&T.

I am always interested in what people think that the future of television will be. Will it be fully interactive? Will it be the internet? Will it be on-demand only? Or will there be a channel devoted entirely to pilots with the rest of television being demand only? Will it be subscription or ad based? Streaming? What role will the Xbox, and similar devices, play? What about cell phones? All of these are interesting questions and the Gizmondo article looks at a couple of the questions. Interestingly, AT&T seems to be downplaying the role the Xbox will play, in favor of their partnership with Apple and the iPhone. It makes sense that AT&T would downplay the white ueberbox, but I think that the future of television might look a little more like Xbox's plex than AT&T's U-verse.


• Speaking of the Plex, Xbox's new name for their Xbox Media Center, Gizmondo has a great piece highlighting some of the updates to the service.

I am a big fan of Xbox's Marketplace, and the ability of the Xbox to communicate with my Media Center powered PC, and updates like this demonstrate why. When Apple started promoting their Apple TV, I kept wondering what people were so excited about. It wasn't as if I couldn't do all that and more with my 360 and Media Center PC. If I own an iTunes show, I can watch it wirelessly on my TV, but I can also record TV programs, play video games, and play movies from other sources. Not everybody has a PC and an Xbox, and the combination is more expensive than Apple TV, but one doesn't need an Xbox to take advantage of Media Center. Having an Xbox just makes Media Center better. I actually can't wait for further integration of the two technologies. Currently, Microsoft has deals with a number of film studios and TV studios for content, but I'd like more of it to be available. For example, it was cool that I was able to watch the pilot of Middleman a week before the show came out, but I'd like more material like this on the box.


• Remember the Commodore 64? Me too. Ever think you could have a C64 LAN party? Me either. I was wrong. It appears that someone is geeky, and tech savvy, enough to do just that. Now if only I can find my C64 in storage and 12 of my close friends.



• The Chicago Tribune's RedEye has an online polling contest for "The Greatest Superhero of All-Time." Cast your vote if you'd like to see your favorite last beyond the first round of voting. I'd hate to see Wonder Woman lose to Spawn or The Shadow lose to The Thing, so go now and vote the same way I did. My votes below in bold.
  

  No. 1 Superman vs. No. 8 Mr. Fantastic
  No. 4 Capt. America vs. No. 5 Capt. Marvel
  No. 3 The Thing vs. No. 6 The Shadow
  No. 2 Wonder Woman vs. No. 7 Spawn
  
  No. 1 Batman vs. No. 8 The Spirit
  No. 4 Thor vs. No. 5 Buffy The Vamp. Slayer
  No. 3 Silver Surfer vs. No. 6 Popeye
  No. 2 The Flash vs. No. 7 Flash Gordon
  
  No. 1 Spider-Man vs. No. 8 Phoenix
  No. 4 Black Panther vs. No. 5 Punisher
  No. 3 Green Lantern vs. No. 6 Green Arrow
  No. 2 Iron Man vs. No. 7 Elektra
  
  No. 1 Wolverine vs. No. 8 Sub-Mariner
  No. 4 Hellboy vs. No. 5 Daredevil
  No. 3 Hulk vs. No. 6 Aquaman
  No. 2 Catwoman vs. No. 7 Kitty Pryde

  
  
  I found it hard to decide in a couple of the pairings. Both The Flash (Jay Garrick) and Flash Gordon are two of my favorite heroes. I voted Flash Gordon in the end since the poll seemed to be implying the Barry Allen or Wally West Flash. I like them both, but I love Flash Gordon. The Green Lantern/Green Arrow battle was also a tough one for me. They are two of my all-time favorite characters. But when forced to choose between the two, I go with Hal Jordan by a nose. Two of the categories featured heartbreaking results to date (at least heartbreaking for me). Spawn is beating Wonder Woman...WTH?! (That's a polite version of WT_) And Black Panther is getting shellacked by the Punisher. For me, there is no contest. Black Panther is much cooler than that psychopathic anti-hero. Notice I wrote anti-hero? The Punisher is a freakin' Spider-Man villain!
  
  
• When are Americans going to wake up and realize, like the Japanese already know, how awesome the PSP is?

My favorite PSP discussion moment comes from when my wife and I were watching INSIDE MAN in the theater. There's a scene where Clive Owen approaches a kid playing a Grand Theft Auto rip off on his PSP. Spike Lee uses it as an opportunity to comment on how video games are negatively affecting culture.

When the scene first started, I thought Spike was going to have the kid using his PSP's wireless capability to communicate what was happening inside the bank with Denzel Washington's character. You see...the PSP could have done exactly that. It's an amazingly powerful wireless device. While I still held this illusion, I was impressed with Spike (more than normal) and was about to praise the tech-geekdom of the movie. Sadly, my bubble was burst when the scene was used for social commentary instead of narrative tension--imagine the kid shifting quickly to the violent video game to hide the fact that he's telling the cops what's going on--in all too typical Hollywood fashion.

Some Film Trailers of Interest

Have you ever wondered what would happen if you crossed SEMI-PRO with KUNG FU SOCCER? Me either, but someone did. I give you...KUNG FU DUNK. No...really.

The bizarre must, naturally, be followed by the brutal. I seem to remember Jet Li saying that he had made his last "Kung Fu Epic." I know, I know, I know. There is a difference between the style of film as represented in ONCE UPON A TIME IN CHINA and the historical film like HERO. I am just saying that apparently historical epics don't count. That, and that I can't wait to see THE WARLORDS.

Speaking of Jet Li. I am eagerly awaiting the August 1st release of the new MUMMY film. Why? Let's see. Mummies, Martial Arts, Terra Cotta Warriors, Magic, Dragons, Pulp, and a Multi-Headed Fire Breathing Dragon...what's not to like? It's even directed by the guy who brought us DRAGON: THE BRUCE LEE STORY. Did I mention Michele Yeoh? No? Well, she's in it too.

You can see a better version of the MUMMY preview at http://papajohns.com/mummy3/.

Xbox Live will soon begin delisting certain titles.

Microsoft has apparently decided that it hates making easy money from its Xbox Live Arcade Marketplace. They will soon be delisting titles (that means removing them from purchase-ability) that have a "metacritic" score below 65%. Essentially, this is the equivalent of movie theaters deciding that they will not screen films with a Rotten Tomatoes score of less than 65%, but with less talented reviewers.

The metacritic rating is only one of the factors that Microsoft will be considering when it measures whether to keep or drop a title, but I want to fully make my straw man attack against them before I add the other factors.

Frankly, on the face this seems ridiculous. Metacritic may be a good review aggregation site, but let's face it reviewers are often very much out of touch with what people enjoy. They are especially out of touch with what I enjoy. Let's have a look at some successful films and how their metacritic scores line up.

If SEX AND THE CITY were a video game, it would be delisted. That 53 Metacritic score isn't even close.

National Treasure 2? 48% and it only made $239 million.

Does Microsoft realize that 48% means "mixed or average reviews?" They probably do. In fact, they probably notice that the ratings for video games seem ridiculously forgiving. It's as if people are judging games with 100s of hours of content upon a couple of hours of play time, or just on how "cool" they think the idea is. This explains the 65% as a measure of critical quality for games, especially given that it wouldn't work so well with movies. But let's hope it isn't the only criteria since there are over 45 XBox Live Arcade games with Metacritic scores below 65.

Let's see how many of them I own and enjoy...

Time pilot... ummm... classic.
Arkadian Warriors... I bought this game due to an add on the XBLA site. It's fun.
Rocketmen... Disappointing? Sure, but it's a fun Robotron style game.
Battlestar Galatica...Crap. Total Crap.
Battlezone...Not updated enough for some, but still fun to play.
Tempest... ummm... classic.
Tron... ummm... classic. 1337 gamers must not like the old school.
Cyber Ball...Plain old fashioned fun.

Now for the real comment. Thankfully this 65% only applies to games that have less than a 6 percent or lower trial conversion rate. Meaning that if the sales numbers are more than 6% of the number of trial downloads the metacritic rating doesn't apply. That means if we as consumers are easily entertained, lowest common denominator boobs, other people will be able to share our misery.

See how that 6% conversion rate changes things? That's why I left it out of my initial comments. It makes Microsoft reasonable, and we can't have that...can we?