As the Blu-ray library continues to expand, finding the right films to express the full power of your home theater can be a difficult decision, but the following titles have been recommended by audio/video experts in terms of their fantastic picture and sound quality, making them great choices to burn onto a blank BD-R:

1.    Avatar (2009)
James Cameron’s visually stunning sci-fi fantasy flick offers one of the best ways to showcase your home theater with its mesmerizing and immersive CGI effects. It doesn’t slouch on the sound, either, as the world of the Na’vi comes to life in perfect clarity. Best of all, the 3D version is of the highest quality for the home market.

2.    Toy Story 3 (2010)
Pixar animations as a whole are Blu-ray must-haves, as their fantastic CGI produces a picture quality unlike anything seen on DVD. The bright and colorful world of Woody, Buzz and the rest of the gang has never looked or sounded better. The 3D version especially shines, and is considered by some reviewers to be the best 3D title of 2011.

3.    The Dark Knight (2008)
If you only own one action movie, then this superhero masterpiece by Christopher Nolan should be your choice due to its lifelike detail and fantastic story. The dark and dreary city of Gotham looks perfect, and the audio features really aggressive bass that is sure to impress your guests when played on a quality sound system.

4.    Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)
Peter Jackson’s adaptation of J. R. R. Tolkien’s epic fantasy has never looked better, and while the entire trilogy is stunning on Blu-ray, the third has transferred with especially high quality. Everything from the wondrous city of Gondor to the nightmarish plains of Mordor is shown in vivid detail. Prepare to be stunned by the sound as well; from thundering battles to the softest whisper.

5.    Casino Royale (2006)
Animation and fantasy titles aren’t the only films worth burning onto a blank BD-R, as this critically-acclaimed James Bond action thriller features theater-quality detail in both its black-and-white and color moments. The audio is especially impressive, as the tonal quality of the film’s soundtrack as well as its dynamic action sequences is clear and balanced.

6.    2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
While it’s strange to see a classic make this list, Stanley Kubrick’s groundbreaking sci-fi film was originally projected onto enormous curved screens, which is why he chose a crisp look for its cinematography. Needless to say, these choices have made the Blu-ray version look fantastic and nearly identical to its theatrical release.

7.    Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)
Tim Burton has always thrilled audiences with his macabre yet comic storytelling, and this retelling of Stephen Sondheim’s gory musical looks wondrously dark in Blu-ray format. The audio is also strong, allowing your guests to become immersed in the dreary crowds of London as well enthralled by Johnny Depp and Helana Bonham Carter’s memorable vocal performances.

8.    Baraka (1992)
Although a documentary about human civilization told only with images seems like a bizarre choice for home theaters owners, this film is considered by videophiles to be the apex of Blu-ray picture quality, with images so clear and vivid that you will swear that they are right in your home.

But this one’s the weirdest, by far.

In case any of you labor under the misapprehension that wrestling is real, this clip should resolve that matter.

The soft science fiction metaseries Bakugan Battle Brawlers has seen adaptations in animation, comics, video games and the more famous physical game. By December 2008, plans for a film from Stuber Productions and Universal Pictures were announced. It seemed to take two years for any other news to surface, but the fact that Haral Zwart will direct them film surfaced in December 2010. Since that time, there has not been much said about the project. Considering that the last piece of news came so long ago, one can only imagine that it must be getting closer to the time of release. That is, of course, if the film has not been caught up in developmental problems. Something has to be said for the fact that Spin Master will be involved, though, and Ronnen Harary seems to be representing that company in the production.

Naturally, there are some fans of the science fiction genre that criticize Bakugan, and they generally call it a franchise that is set up for the purpose of selling merchandise. Even if this were true, no one can deny that the series boasts characters with some great hair. Assuming that the movie is live action, it will be interesting to see how the actress who plays Runo pulls off a giant blue wig and yellow neon clothes. Of course, there’s always the chance that the studio will tamper with the character designs, but true fans know that hair makes the movie. If nothing else, it would be bad for the companies that make wigs for droves of cosplayers.

On the other hand, there have been reports that the film would be made through animation. This might very well be the best choice, and it could help the film avoid the cheesy nature that live action adaptations of television shows often have. While the speculative nature of science fiction allows people to suspend disbelief to a greater degree than that of fans of other genres, a film made up of too much CGI might still be a subject of ridicule. Still, the 2007 Transformers film got away with a comparable amount of necessary computer imaging, and Bakugan might be able to adapt to a similar format if the individuals behind the movie elect to do so. Still, the idea of a live action science fiction drama based on Bakugan might be disturbing to some fans considering what happened to movies that were made the same way.

The pilot begins with a terminal diagnosis for Kane, which he can barely process against the life of a politician.  The main (sort of) plot line is about an effort to expand O’Hare Airport stymied by discovery of a Native American burial ground.  Long story short, there’s a bunch of political intrigue surrounding it, all while Kane strains to rebuild relation ships with his estranged family.

Grammer has the chops to deliver.  The script offers some exciting twists, if not anything that blows you away.  Overall, the gritty tone steals the show.

Best aspects:  The directing.  I’m not trying to be sycophantic to Gus Van Sant, but what separates this most from other television is shot calling, followed thereafter perhaps by art direction.

Worst aspects:  You can feel the show trying a little too hard to be serious, hard-hitting, edgy, critically acclaimed drama.  The hype leads us to believe we’re watching some epic-level amoral anti-hero, but in the last decade we’ve seen a lot; Grammer’s Kane comes across so far as a boilerplate corrupt politician.

Verdict: A drama has to have something special for me to latch on, and this is not quite there.  Watch it if you liked Damages.

Odds of Success: Starz is an infant to original programming.  They’ll give this show a chance to find wings.  Relationships are in place, and we can see the beginnings of a web of deceit that promises to get tangled.  There’s every chance for this to be a success on a level that a cable net would call a home run.

Here’s the gist:  In the aftermath of a miscarriage, a husband cheats on his wife.  In attempt to reconcile, they move with their teenage daughter from Boston to Los Angeles… and into a Murder House.  It has literal demons to compliment their metaphorical ones.

The horror is overblown, and derivative… and compelling.  An episode of AHS tastes like a slice from a cake baked from ingredients borrowed from LOST, Scream, Twin Peaks, and True Blood (the twisting-your-partner’s-head-180-on-her-torso-as-you-sex-her-while-covered-in-blood True Blood.)

Plus, there’s an Extra Ingredient that several reviews have called “psychosexual,” but which you wouldn’t be wrong in labeling “f-ed up.”  You’ve seen sexually threatening ghost-demons before, and you’ve even seen sexually threatening ghost-demons reproducing with humans, but you’ve never seen sexually threatening ghost-demons reproducing with humans while sporting a latex bondage gimp suit.

It’s too light a word to suggest AHS pays homage to numerous classic films. (The score doesn’t just borrow from that of Psycho; they actually licensed the score from Psycho.)  So unabashed is the willingness to mooch from this and that horror movie, and so stong is that f-ed-up Extra Ingredient being added to the recipe, the result somehow comes out feeling new. I guess I don’t care if the ghost story I’m hearing at the camp fire is unoriginal, as long as its being well told.

So that’s what’s bothering me.  Is this being well told?  Or is it a rehash of everything we’ve seen before, with lots of Extra Ingredient splashed throughout?  On one hand, I’m drawn to this show because it’s unlike anything I’ve seen (which is different that calling it original) and I’m excited any time television can offer something new.  Then again, I worry for our society when we’re all so overexposed to storytelling that depravity is the only direction left to explore.  In a world with so many channels that one must shock to stand out, Extra Ingredient can be applied too liberally, blurring the lines between trash, art, and porn.  This morning, Entertainment Weekly gave Human Centipede 2 a B+.

The obvious question is whether the writers can sustain horror-movie tension episode after episode.  And even more in doubt is whether a satisfying conclusion can be reached.  After the blue balls served up by the finale of LOST, are we willing to tolerate being manipulated by AHS?

The creators, Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuck, also created Glee together, and Murphy was behind Nip/Tuck.  It’s too early to draw conclusions about AHS, but there are commonalities between the other two shows–no matter how different they are otherwise–that might provide hints in what we can expect here.  Both Glee and Nip/Tuck fill their worlds with largely unlikable characters.  Or, at least, those characters can turn on a dime to become unlikable, as long as it serves the tension of a scene.  Exposition and story logic will be tolerated only if they don’t get in the way of the sensational bits.  Camp is to be embraced, and premises are heavy-handedly stretched to their logical extremes.  Character consistency will be happily thrown to the wind if it can set up a song or a surgery, or, I’m guessing, a ghost going boo.

All of which leaves me fearing I will have the same relationship with American Horror Story that I do with Nip/Tuck and Glee: after each episode, I’ll curse myself for having wasted another hour, swear that I’m done with the show for good this time, and tune in the following week.

His job as a photographer for a sporting goods magazine is threatened when the boss decides to shut down the print version and focus on the web.  To survive, he must make himself useful, internet-style.

For the first ten minutes, I wanted to dislike this show.  As a family comedy starring Tim Allen, it feels unoriginal.  (At one point, he says “and Beyond!” in a Buzz Lightyear inflection.)  But it turns out that’s nothing more than the fact that Allen isn’t stretching much with his character.  Once the show settles in to the actual story lines, the non-Allen elements provide cleverness and even a few laugh-out-loud jokes to be had.

Best aspects:  He doesn’t do the laugh.

Worst aspects:  They beat you over the head with the man thing in the pilot.  And the laugh track is working way too hard, until the actual humor kicks in.

Verdict: It’s OK.

Odds of Success: Tough call. My dad likes it, and he’s a decent gauge for middle America.  Speaking of which, the two-episode kick-off did well, numbers-wise.  They’ll likely get a season to prove themselves.

There have been several requests for shorter pieces. So here’s my attempt at something you can perform in about a minute.

I try to be the kind of writer who gives an actor room to play. It’s risky; my writing looks brilliant in the hands of talented thespians, and just okay when done by a performer who thinks through the beats and nuances less. This piece definitely feels like one that could kill, or could muster polite chuckles. Please let me know how it works for you!

Note from the author: If you’re in a situation when the word ‘ass’ is inappropriate, please use ‘bum’ or ‘backside.’ For some reason, to me, using ‘butt’ feels more vulgar in this context than ‘ass’ does, and less cute.

2 Broke Girls

Hart of Dixie–New York gal has to survive in ‘Bama.  She’s a doctor.  Execution is good.  All as predictable as it sounds.  My fiancée wants to watch more.  I do not.

How To Be a Gentleman–There’s a big billboard for this show on Santa Monica Blvd., and every time I passed it last month, I cringed.  It screamed horrible Odd Couple rip-off.  Having watched the pilot, I can confirm that it is, in fact, a horrible Odd Couple rip-off.  David Hornsby created, wrote, and stars in this pilot.  So it’s his fault.  He lacks gravitas to pull off the Gentleman part of the duo.  Kevin Dillon plays a slightly brighter version of his Entourage character, even if this script calls for less bright.  Seriously, next to Hornsby, he looks like a composed, veteran acting god.  Dave Foley’s great, but he’s only on screen long enough to set up the situation.  And there’s so much ‘sit’ in this sit com it’s painful.  Unless it takes a sharp turn, even as a partner to Two and a Half Men, I can’t see how HTBaG can live on.  At least this odd couple doesn’t live together.  Yet.

Secret Circle–There’s a town in Washington (why are all the supernaturals from my home state?) where some witches live, and if they can get one member from each of six families together, they can unlock major powers.  Yes, it’s your standard, overly pretty teens having attitude for no reason, plus superpowers.  However, the angst-to-bad-special-effects ration is toned down compared to Vampire Diaries or Smallville levels. Plus there’s intrigue involving the previous generation, plus the dialogue is nowhere near as grating as it often is in this subgenre.  When I need something to watch in the background, I may tune in again.

Suburgatory–Single dad finds condoms in his daughter’s drawer, and so moves her from New York City to the suburbs.  The upshot is clever but not funny.  Switching back and forth between father and daughter for a dual fish-out-of-water POV, Suburgatory offers a fun observational humor.  However, it feels more regional to the tri-state area than its authors seem to realize.  I can’t imagine a broad audience flocking to this show, and I’m afraid I’m out.

Terra Nova–Future Earth is overpopulated and overpolluted (yawn) so humans go back in time to start anew.  And there are dinosaurs!  The start is slow.  This family has an extra kid, so dad’s in jail, and he has to bust out, and (yaaaawn) the son resents his dad for going to jail.  None of that part is interesting or particularly believable.  At one point, the mom asks, “Did we do the right thing?” and it’s so totally clear that they did, that we the viewers don’t care even a little.  ”Was it smart of us to leave the dystopian horror of our previous hell for a chance at breathable are and sunshine?”  Of course it was.  No conflict = no drama.  But it picks up.  There are some chases with dinosaurs and whatnot.  Still yawning.  But there’s also an enemy camp of settlers, mysterious petroglyphs, and some potential duplicity and big secrets.  The parts that feel Spielberg-y aren’t super interesting.  We’ve seen people scared by dinosaurs.  The rest of the mythology is what might make the show worth following.  There’s a whole lot of action/sci-fi power working this show, including Jon Cassar (24, La Femme Nikita), David Fury (Buffy, Angel, LOST) and Brannon Braga (all the new Star Treks) so here’s hoping that team knows how to develop the intrigue and deliver episodes more like the second hour than the first.

Whitney–She’s a photographer who can’t commit, but she’s been in a three-year relationship with her man, and they’re not getting married, but they’re going to a wedding.  A Friends-like cast rounds things out, and the overall result feels like it’s trying to hard.  The edge from her stand-up is missing.  Still, there’s something quite likable at its core, and hopefully the show will blossom.

Los Angeles is hilarious in the rain.

The local news will run teasers all day.  ”What’s with all this rain, and WHEN will it finally END?  Details at 11!”

(To mock evenly, Seattle is the same way about snow.)

People change their plans.  ”I know we were supposed to do lunch today, but I don’t know… with all this RAIN….”

You can go to the grocery story during peak hours but there are no lines.

It’s even funnier if the rain happens a second day: “Uhhgh, seriously… Rain AGAIN?!”

I love it.  When in rains in L.A., not only can you move about freely, but  the city finally smells nice.  Here’s hoping this unbelievable, ungodly deluge of a sprinkle sticks around for a few days.

There’s no point even pretending that these two Mad Men inspirees should be discussed out of that context, so here goes:

It’s amazing how wrong the tone feels in The Playboy Club from moment one.  Following a voiceover intro from Hugh Hefner that sounds like a film noir parody, we meet a heroine who seems to have no redeeming qualities but, as a co-worker points out, her legs.  When you were a kid, did you ever tell ‘What’s Grosser than Gross?  What’s Grosser than That?’ jokes?  That’s how the intro proceeds, when the unlikeable heroine is sexually assulted… and then accidentally stabs her assailant in the neck with her heel.  Cue opening credits.

And it turns out the dead guy was a mob boss!  Goodness me!  And then people are having sex.  Gasp!  And suddenly no one really cares about the death in the first scene, and we’re on to who’s doing whom.  Normally I watch everything, because we all know that the bad can teach us as much as the good.  But this is horrible.  It’s like a trashy soap, but not all that soapy.  Not even for you, dear reader, could I finish watching.

When’s Don Draper coming back again?

Pan Am honors its era with much worthier storytelling. OK, yes, there’s still a lot of over-the-top plot elements, with one of the crew working as a spy, and others having brought survivors out of the Bay of Pigs.  Those scenes are the least interesting, a forced effort to ground us in the decade.  In truth, that job is done much better as a side effect of characterization, for example a new captain giddy to explain the brand-new Boeing 707 to his passengers, or a stewardess’s back story of fleeing her wedding to pursue a woman’s one path at the time to see the world.  I probably don’t have time for it, but fans of hour-longs or plain-old nostalgists should give Pan Am another few episodes to see if the characters will continue to blossom interestingly.

So… the opportunity exists here to compare three dramas, each set in a dynamic bygone decade, each exploring adult themes for an adult audience.  Despite these tasks in common, one show is excellent, one horrible, and one so-so.  Why?  My theory is that it comes down to honesty.  Plot and character must melt in a good story for us to buy in.  And if one must have priority, let it be characters following honest motivations.

Mad Men should win no honors for structure.  Like The Sopranos before it, it immerses quirky, bigger-than-life characters in a deliciously textured world and then waits to see what will happen.  Sometimes something does.  Other times, not so much.  An ongoing story thread might show up next week or next year.  But we don’t care, because enjoyed watching these people navigate their rich world so much.

The Playboy Club went the complete opposite direction.  It tries to hook us hard, and we resent the manipulation.  The characters feel like they exist because they’re just sort of supposed to, as if they’re extensions of the plot, rather than the causes of it.  Pan Am is more successful because it spends its pilot episode introducing us to a group of people, telling us the most important things we need to know about each character to understand them.

I’m not arguing against arcs and structure.  If anything, those are my forte, and I’m disappointed by any entertainment that doesn’t include them (including Mad Men, at times.)  But what I am saying is that character is clearly as important, and I’ll watch great characters follow honest motivations to achieve their goals–sixties or otherwise.