I don’t get to the movies with the kids as often as I’d like—heck, I don’t get to the movies without that kids as often as I’d like, either—but it seems like we’ve been seeing trailers for Penelope for forever. And every time we see it, my daughter turns to me with great urgency.

“I want to see that,” she says. Not the “oh that’s so cute” sort of “I want to see that” or the “all my friends will be seeing it” sort of “I want to see that,” but more of a “that movie is about a girl who isn’t perfect getting a happy ending, and I need to see that.”

My daughter is not unattractive, you understand. I happen to think she’s gorgeous, though it’s possible I’m slightly biased. But there’s certainly nothing wrong with her. Well, nothing other than the fact that she’s a hormonal tween and she has recently looked in the mirror and not seen Hannah Montana staring back at her… and has therefore found herself wanting.

My son is younger, and so I don’t yet know if boys go through a similar period of time where suddenly they are not smart enough, attractive enough, popular enough. I can remember experiencing this myself at around my daughter’s age, and watching her struggle through it is not what I would term one of the perks of parenting. Our society too often demands perfection and perfection is almost always impossible. That’s a tall order for anyone, much less a little kid.

And so I will take my daughter to see Penelope. I will cross my fingers that the movie’s tagline—”A fairy tale like no other”—is really true. I will hope that Penelope saves herself (rather than being saved by a love interest) and that her “flaw” becomes inconsequential. I would really, really like to share a story like that with my daughter right about now.

Over at Rotten Tomatoes, the reviews are currently mixed, but the scales are tipping in a favorable direction. Me, I’m clinging to the last words of Roger Moore’s review:

What Penelope offers is a terrific cast willing to emphasize the charming, a decent fake nose and a message that any parent would love to pass on to a child — love yourself and the world will love you back.

Sounds good to me.

No, no, no. Stop panicking! It’s not today. You didn’t lose part of the week—I’m just being all prepared and stuff, bringing this up a couple of days early, for a change. This year, Leap Day falls on Friday. That’s sort of nice, because it allows you to do something special with the kids without it being a Big Thing in the middle of the week. (Halloween, I am looking at you.)

If you’d like to send someone a free e-card to commemorate this auspicious occasion, keep in mind that sending a Care2 eCard generates funds for charitable organizations. It’s a great way to have some fun and generate some good karma.

There’s a whole site dedicated to Leap Year Day, and even a special section there just for kids. Did you know that the proper term for a person born on February 29th is not a “Leap Year Baby” but a “Leap Day Baby?” It makes sense, but I’d never really thought about it before.

Scholastic has a few tips on how to bring math and science into the celebration on Leap Day. It was there that I first learned that Leap Day is often about… frogs. Of course.

And that (of course) led me to this article, aptly titled Come on, get hoppy. It’s a great piece about what’s happening a the Detroit Zoo starting on Leap Day. They’re calling 2008 the Year of the Frog, and a celebration of the amphibious hoppers seems only fitting for a Leap Year.

Hey, the St. Louis Zoo is celebrating, too. Activities include the suggestion that you “get your froggy boogie on” with Bob Case and his Bullfrog Blues. (That sounds frogtastic.)

However you choose to celebrate, you have a few days to plan it out, so weigh your options carefully. It only comes every four years, you know. Have an extra cookie or something!

Have you met the Imagination Movers yet? Their website suggests you imagine “What would happen if the Beastie Boys collaborated with Mr. Rogers?” And that pretty much sums it up, right there. (Before I read that, I was going to describe them as a cross between Chumbawumba and They Might Be Giants, based upon the song below. But I’m willing to give a shout-out to Mr. Rogers, too, and I definitely see the Beastie Boys vibe in some other of their songs.)

So, yes, it’s another kiddie rock group. These guys wear coveralls, for some reason. I’m not sure why. I sort of wanted to hate them, because the coveralls creep me out. But darn if they aren’t actually sort of fun. Check ‘em out:

(Maybe your toes weren’t tapping by the end of that, but I can make no such claim.)

Anyway, last week Variety reported that March will bring Imagination Movers to the Disney Channel:

Disney Channel’s preschool block is singing a different tune, recruiting the kid-centric rock group Imagination Movers to star in their own series.

[…]

“Imagination Movers” stars the New Orleans-based group that calls itself “the world’s first alternative rock band for preschoolers.” As an advance to the show, Disney Channel will premiere three new music videos from the group starting Saturday, March 8.

Videos — for the songs “Can You Do It,” “Calling All Movers” and “Numbers in a Bag” — are timed to the Walt Disney Records release of the Imagination Movers’ album “Juicebox Heroes,” which drops on March 18. Album contains tracks from the group’s first three independently-released albums, which will be featured on the show.

As much as I like the music (and I actually do, although ask me again after I’ve heard it a million times, I guess), I wonder what the show can/will contain that will make it a viable, unique offering. I guess I can find out next month.

Prior to the 1985 release of Clue, it was probably difficult for anyone to imagine a hit movie based upon a board game. It was another ten years after that before Jumanji came out. But both had all of the makings of great films—action, intrigue, great characters—and both ended up as hits. Ten years after Jumanji (again! maybe ten is the magic number?), Zathura used a similar formula to achieve cinematic success.

So it’s not that movies based on what happens with a board game can’t be successful. It’s happened before. Obviously.

Still, when Rotten Tomatoes updated the world on Hasbro’s movie plans, the news was sort of difficult to wrap my head around:

Hasbro and Universal have released a joint statement announcing their new “six-year strategic partnership,” which should bring “at least four” movies based on Hasbro properties to the big screen. The short list, apparently, includes Monopoly, Ouija, Battleship, Magic: The Gathering, Stretch Armstrong, and a new Clue. From the statement:

“This deal gives Universal access to some of the greatest brands in the world. Hasbro’s portfolio of products has tremendous emotional resonance with children and adults. They offer an exciting opportunity for us to develop tentpole movies with built-in global brand awareness, which is a key component of our slate strategy. Universal’s creativity and worldwide marketing and distribution strength make them the perfect partner. Today’s Hasbro is so much more than a traditional toy and game company, and this partnership is a powerful example of how we are offering our consumers new ways to enjoy unique and immersive experiences with our brands.”

I salute Hasbro for its optimism, y’know? And I can sort of see it… for a couple of those… I mean, Magic: The Gathering is incredibly story-rich, for example. But a Monopoly movie? Battleship? I’m not quite ready to drink the Kool-Aid, I don’t think.

In the meantime, put a hotel on Park Place for me. And please don’t sink my battleship.

I haven’t said anything about Toy Fair yet this week, and it’s not because I don’t care—it’s mostly because I was grumpy that I don’t get to go. I mean, come on, don’t you think that Toy Fair should be considered required research for a Toy Box Mommy? I certainly do. But there’s that whole matter of living a thousand miles away and my kids needing me and all of that. Hmph.

(Yes, it’s true. Sometimes your mom just wants to run away and go play with toys. Don’t worry; it’s just a fantasy.)

Anyway, yesterday I finally sat down to look over some of the coverage online. As usual, the buzz is coming along fast and furious, but I like to look at just a few trusted sources to get an overall feel for what happened this week in New York City. If you want the scoop, well, select from the following choices:

Want just the facts, ma’am? Msnbc has a slideshow of projected hot toys for 2008. It starts out with the most terrifying Elmo yet (his mouth is hanging open and he appears to be either dancing or writhing in agony) and goes from there. I felt better once I got to “Taters of the Lost Ark” (the Indiana Jones-themed Mr. Potato Head), though.

Want the TDmonthly perspective? They’ve been covering everything Toy Fair in a special section that includes daily exhibitor and retailer tips. That would’ve been more useful while the show was still going on, I guess, but they have some nice photos from the show floor, as well as some commentary.

And finally—you know how I like to save the best for last—friend of Ty’s Toy Box Chris Byrne, a.k.a. The Toy Guy, has been doing some awesome Toy Fair coverage on his blog. The jewel-encrusted Hot Wheels car pictured above was auctioned off for charity, he reported as part of a Mattel recap. In the Hasbro recap we learn of an upcoming wiimote-based Nerf blaster for use with the Nintendo wii (awesome). The Jakks Pacific post has news from Nickelodeon Slime to Hannah Montana—clearly, all the based were covered!

I do love checking out all the new toys, even if I didn’t get to go see them on the showroom floor….

If I had to make a list of beloved animated children’s shows which I feel are ill-suited to become live-action movies, I couldn’t promise you that Dora the Explorer would be number 1, but it would definitely make the top 5.

I mean… I guess Spongebob might be even stranger, as a live-action affair. Though I suppose they could deal with the water through CGI.

The main problem, for me, is that Dora—while hugely popular, yes—is specifically designed to look like a computer game. A computer game for 2-to-5-year-olds. Does the same demographic that shrieks “MAP! MAP! MAAAAAAP!” at the television care if Dora is a real person as opposed to a cartoon? I think not. Additionally, live-action implies something exciting to me, something which feels even more cutting-edge and dangerous when it involves a real person.

I’m not sure how scary it’s going to be to watch Dora help little birds find their nests and stuff. Will we have an entire theater of preschoolers screaming “LOOK OUT FOR THE BIG CHICKEN, DORA!”?

Nevertheless, Nickelodeon is making a prime-time movie that will feature a real live Dora:

The show’s been a marketing bonanza for Nickelodeon, which has spun “Dora” off into a lucrative merchandising business and a live stage show.

[Nickelodeon’s president of animation] Johnson says Nick will likely hold a national casting call for the live-action Dora - who will be a little older in the movie to corrall a family-oriented audience.

[…]

“Our first priority is to cast someone who’s Latina and bilingual,” she says. “We’ll cast someone between the ages of 10-13.

I thought Dora was around five or six years old, myself. Someone between 10 and 13? I dunno. Maybe she’ll suggest we all look in her PURSE for her LIPSTICK just to keep the whole feel of traditional Dora.

Clearly, I’m skeptical. We’ll see, I guess.

The ‘net was buzzing, yesterday. The hotly anticipated Where the Wild Things Are movie isn’t slated to be released until 2009, and the studio has been very tight-lipped with any information that might give us an idea of what we’re in for once the big day arrives. But somehow… a video of a scene from the movie was leaked to the internet a few days ago.

Maybe.

Speculation has run from “complete fake” to “absolutely real” and everywhere inbetween. No one seems to know where or how it made its debut, but the clip was posted, then removed, then surfaced in other locations, and still—no one seemed to know whether it was the real deal or not. Check it out:

Let me just remind you (before we go any further) how I feel about the impending movie. Trepidation doesn’t really even begin to cover it. After watching that clip? I think I upgraded to actual dread.

So I clicked around to read some more about it. Ain’t It Cool News suggests that the clip is indeed real, but should be considered unlikely to appear in the final product:

Now, I’ve seen this film. Or rather, I saw a version of it. And I can tell you that there’s a reason this film isn’t coming out in 2008 anymore. There’s a lot of work left to do on it, and I wouldn’t be surprised to hear about some fairly massive reshoots in the months ahead.

So… ummmm… that and a buck will get you a cup of coffee. And a nightmare or two (more) about the movie….

[Hat tip: Pop Candy]

When the 2007 Academy Award nominees were announced, most of us probably paid little attention to the animated short films, because most of us probably haven’t seen any of them.

Let’s face it; if you’re reading here, most likely the animation you’re seeing is the stuff your kids beg for, and very little of that is going to include the “artsy” animated shorts that draw Oscar bids. Then again, perhaps you consider yourself an animation buff, in which case any failure to have taken in this year’s contenders may be bumming you out a bit. Darn life and responsibilities and commitments; you want to know which films you should make it your business to see.

The New York Times did a great piece on all of the nominated animated short films, starting off with a brisk caution to those who would dismiss this category as fluff:

It would be a mistake to assume that the 10 movies nominated this year for best live-action and animated short film in the Oscar sweepstakes are the kind of cinematic amuse-bouches often shown before the main feature at film festivals. Most are not trifles, and some range from 30 to 40 minutes long.

Among the animated films nothing resembles a traditional Disney cartoon. Sophisticated illustration, puppetry, stop-motion animation and digital wizardry are the order of the day.

Read the entire piece for the run-down; the entire program is about two-and-a-quarter hours long and is showing across the U.S. (Though not in my small town, darn it.) It may not be suitable for small children, but you‘re not a small child, are you? If it’s showing in your town, it sounds like it’ll be worth finding a sitter one of these nights.

When I was young and single, Valentine’s Day was filled with angst over which boy I was involved with or not involved with or wishing I was involved with or just plain pretending I didn’t care about that stupid meaningless holiday, anyway. Once I was married, then it was a whole new level of what to do; do we make a big deal out of it? Do we forget about it because we’re married? What if I get him something and he doesn’t do anything for me? And so on.

But since having kids, I’m finally free to love Valentine’s Day with a reckless abandon. There’s nothing quite like watching a child’s joy over something as simple as a heart-shaped doily plastered with glitter.

(And the candy they bring home from school isn’t so bad, either.)

Nowadays, I’m all about the kids enjoying the day. If they’re having fun, it’s a lot easier to sneak the chocolate out of their goody bags.

We’re having pink pancakes for breakfast. Just to start the day off right.

Need some pointers to get you in the mood? I’ve got you covered. (Actually, I also appear to have more than enough pancakes. Come on over! It’s BYOS, though.) (Bring Your Own Syrup.)

PBS Kids has an entire Valentine’s Day section of fun. So does Family Fun, of course. (You can even ask the pigeon to deliver a card for you. Just don’t let him drive the bus!) Need a last-minute gift? How about a coupon book, either for your child or for a child to give to a parent? Oh, and there’s more cute Valentine’s ecards over here.

Whatever you end up doing with your kids today, it goes without saying that it’s a good time to tell them how much you love them.

Sometimes, when you do that, they offer up their candy and you don’t even have to sneak it later.

I will never forget seeing the original Star Wars film in the theater. I was 6 years old (keep your “old” comments to yourself, please) and thrilled to be taking in a movie rated PG. I thought it was incredibly amazing and my brother and I argued all the way home about whose favorite movie was Star Wars, as he claimed it was his and couldn’t be mine, as well. I remember being quite put out by his insistence.

I rented Star Wars for my kids after they’d already seen The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. I was completely jazzed to see my old favorite again.

Fifteen minutes in, my daughter yawned. At twenty minutes, my son asked if we had any snacks.

About halfway through, my daughter patted my leg in a consoling manner. “It’s okay, Mom,” she said, “I’m sure this was the best they could do, back then.”

Oh, well then.

After some consideration, I decided to keep the children in spite of their inability to appreciate anything other than CGI. Hmph.

But here’s some news they’re going to find very exciting: This summer will bring an animated Star Wars: The Clone Wars to the big screen:

The feature film, chronicling the wartime adventures of a pre-Darth Vader Anakin Skywalker and mentor Obi-Wan Kenobi, takes place immediately before the events in 2005’s Revenge of the Sith. It serves as a kickoff for the half-hour animated TV series planned for fall on Cartoon Network and TNT.

“I felt there were a lot more Star Wars stories left to tell,” creator George Lucas said in a statement. “I was eager to start telling some of them through animation.”

I found the accompanying graphic disconcerting, truthfully—to me it looks like a video game. Although, I suppose that may be the point.

Then again, I am unbothered by movie sequences in which you can see the strings attached to the space ships… so I may not be the best judge.