First Signs of Trouble

Comparing the two Doctor Whos by their Christmas specials

2011-12-27T13:08:00.010-05:00

It's a good time to be a Doctor Who fan. In 1963 a character was created that erupted onto Britain's pop culture map. He started out as a wily grandfather but, with each incarnation, Doctor Who becomes a markedly different show. In his first incarnation, the Doctor was a wily grandfather type. Then he became more of a wacky uncle. Eleven incarnations and almost 40 years later (minus the hiatus in late 80s through to the 90s), the Doctor has been there on British television screens to whisk his audience away on adventure. But for some reason, it has taken Doctor Who almost 40 years to really build an American audience. Sure the old series used to run on PBS, but it was only during the most recent regeneration that the show has really gained a foothold in the states. Maybe it's Eleven's bow tie that finally made him mainstream in America.

Bow ties certainly helped Tucker Carlson's popularity.

With eleven incarnations, everybody has their own Doctor. I admit, it was during David Tennant's run that I originally started watching Doctor Who. I have always been a fan of time travel stories since I was little (I once tried to make my own time machine out of waffle blocks, a skateboard and a clock taped to my vehicle). And while I was aware of the older Doctor Who series, it wasn't until the new series premiering in 2005 that I really had a chance to watch it. Produced by Russel T. Davies and starring Christopher Eccleston, the revamped Doctor Who proved popular enough to continue past the first series. But it wasn't until Tennant took over the role that it really found its voice.

Tennant really was wonderful in the role.

And so the show continued, with Davies showrunning and Tennant starring. Doctor Who continued to be a success, but it was very campy and pulpy. Yes the series has always been tongue-in-cheek, however Doctor Who as a series never seemed to live up to its potential. With limitless storytelling opportunities at their disposal, having all of time and space to work with, series two, three and four just seemed to tell the same stories repeatedly. Let's look at the Christmas specials for simplicities sake.

Consider this my late Christmas post.

You see, Doctor Who has a tradition of running a special, a mostly standalone, extended episode around Christmas. During the Davies years, they have all been defined by giant invasions of tragedies. Just like most of the normal episodes, there was high stakes and high drama to be had by all. Whether it's an alien invasion, Victorian Cybermen or a futuristic Titanic disaster, Davies always struggled to tell huge stories with lots of sacrifice and action. These qualities define Davies' time as showrunner, with the world always in peril every week and the Doctor always there to save it. The Doctor became a messianic figure under Davies, and there is nothing fun about a messianic figure.

Sorry Jesus, happy birthday though.

When Davies left and Steven Moffat took over as showrunner, the show gained a new life and, with it a new following. Moffat infused a new sense of adventure that was lost in the RTD era. With Matthew Smith as the Eleventh Doctor, there was an energy to the show that has allowed it to finally become popular in America. While yes there was a niche audience of American fans before, now the ratings have never been better. Moffat brings a level of maturity to what is basically considered a kids program. For Moffat, the world doesn't need to be at peril every Christmas. Yes he has only produced two specials so far, but those two specials are head and shoulders above all the ones by Davies.

Series five and six feel completely different from the previous series, in a good way.

Both this year and last year, Moffat has crafted personal little tales about individuals in need to help. And not just sonic screwdriver help, but emotional help. The Doctor doesn't just save them from peril, but helps them become better people. The Earth being in danger is played out in science fiction, leaving the threat hollow, especially for a show like Doctor Who. But for the past few years it wasn't the Earth on the line, but instead the soul of a grumpy old man or the strength of a wounded mother. By focusing on real people instead of abstract threats of doomsday weapons, Moffat has allowed for real emotion to seep into the series. We are no longer told to follow our imagination and go on adventure, we are instead wrapped up in it.

Sidebar: Imagine if Terry Gilliam ever got his hands on Doctor Who? It would be awesome.

Davies used Doctor Who to play off our fears as children of monsters in our closet. But we needn't worry, because David Tennant will than show up in his blue box and save us all. Moffat instead humanizes those monsters. It's really quite funny, the past few series have been the darkest Who has been, but it still carries with it this childlike wonderment that you can't force or fake. Between Moffat's writing and Smith's acting, we have a Doctor that is both relatable and alien. The show is really a strange amalgam of themes but oddly it works brilliantly. Doctor Who could never gestate anywhere else but England. If Doctor Who was developed in America it could of never grown into its weirdness (for other weird but charming British shows, just check out Mighty Boosh), it would of instead compromised itself and been cancelled after a season. But instead we have a completely charming series that I enjoy watching. So, while I started watching with Tennant, I have no problem saying that Smith is my Doctor. He does a damn fine job.

Ignore the giant eyeball and just listen to the speech.

Quadrophenia: The greatest album ever made

2011-11-18T18:37:00.011-05:00

Don Woods (Mr. Jim): One of my favorite party tricks involves my friend Tom. You see, I become a bit out of depth when the subject of music comes up in party conversation. As I've admitted before, I've always appreciated music but to call myself a music-person would seem obscene to those that make it their life. But during these conversations I try and steer the direction of discussion to great albums. I state my case as to the best album of all time, get met with disbelief, and instantly grab a random member of the party to back me up. Grabbing my friend Tom (he is tall, you can't miss him in a room), we immediately babble on about the greatest album of all time: Quadrophenia. Then me and Tom get wrapped up talking about The Who and forget there is a party around us. With last week's re-release of Quadrophenia, it seemed a good time to finally talk about it on here.

It's not an album, it's an experience.

(Aforementioned friend) Tom Henry (Dr. Jimmy): Every year Guitar World releases a review of the best concept album of all time and year in and year out the winner is The Who’s Tommy. All I have to say to that is: bollocks. Tommy revolutionized rock n’ roll when it came out in 1969 and became The Who’s first commercially successful album. Until that point, The Who was an immensely popular Mod band trying to make it big. Most of the money they made on album sales and touring was spent to pay for damages the band made to concert venues and hotel rooms.

Keith Moon taking a break between wrecking hotel rooms.

Tommy eventually led to a movie and Broadway play which made the band economically viable, thus allowing them to explore further into rock. What followed are four of the greatest albums of all time: The Who by Numbers, Who’s Next, Who Are You and of course the single greatest album of all time, Quadrophenia.

DW: It's a completely lazy comparison, but I see Quadrophenia as being like an album version of Catcher in the Rye. It's a violent, seedy, coming of age story. Jimmy, the protagonist of the rock opera, represents all of us frustrated with life. Thank god Pete Townshend has such a large nose, or else the frustration that sells the album would never be there. The sound and fury of Townshend's guitar and Roger Daltrey's wail speak out for generations of disillusioned kids. By listening to this album we know that we are not as lost as we think we are. And though we maybe stuck on a rock, we can still find redemption in the rain.

Here is the soundtrack of the film based on an album.

I found Quadrophenia in my senior year of high school. Senior year is obviously trying for any adolescent, and my existential crisis seemed more severe than most. Through my lows during that year and summer, I knew I could always turn to The Who. And though I'm sure it's trite to say, I owe a lot to Quadrophenia. That album consoled me more than anything else.

It's not emo if you kick ass at the same time.

TH: While I have never been particularly plagued with angst, Quadrophenia has struck a cord with me ever since I first heard it. My uncle is responsible to introducing me to my Who-obsession. While I have always been a big Who fan (the first album I bought was a greatest hits album) I was a little late in discovering Quadrophenia. What can I say, I was a traditionalist. I believed in the Tommy/Who’s Next paradigm. What could be better? Then a rude awakening came in the way of the songs 5:15 and Love Reign o’er Me. Over the last four years my liking of Quadrophenia has blossomed into love. And not just fleeting infatuation as happens with modern Top 40 songs. Real, full on love.

Tom's favorite song.

This album is perfect. It features the flawless writing of Townshend and one of the greatest hard rock vocalists of all time in the form of Daltrey. John Entwistle is the little appreciated hero, who competes year in and year out for the greatest bassist of all time [only competition being Flea and JPJ (DW: and Les Claypool)]. And, of course, the greatest drummer of all time in Keith Moon.

Bassist never get much love.

DW: I admit The Who aren't as great as they once were. Bad Super Bowl shows and reliance on CSI royalties have showed that they aren't the hard rocking band they once were. But that's fine because the albums from their prime still live up to this day. It means a lot for an album to still have relevance this far down the road. Quadrophenia, however, is not just an album. For me, Quadrophenia was a lifeboat during turbulent times. And I know I'm not the only one that feels that way. My general taste in music might lean more towards the garage-rock revival of the double-0's and Radiohead, but my favorite album will always be Quadrophenia.

Donny's favorite Quadrophenia song.

TH: While I am unabashedly in love with this album I am not the only one nor am I its biggest fan. That proud honor belongs to Eddie Vedder. Yes, the Golden Baritone himself (DW: I'm not the biggest Vedder fan). Vedder covered Love, Reign O’ver Me for the 2007 film Reign Over Me; however he needed Daltry to coax him into recording it. Vedder initially turned down Adam Sandler’s request because Vedder, like me, believes that you can’t outdo perfection. On multiple occasions Vedder has spoken about the role that the Who played in his life and, specifically, how Quadrophenia influenced his work. Like Donny and I, Quadriophenia played an important role in his life. Pearl Jam really did a nice job of paying tribute to those that came before them and it was really special to see them pay tribute to the Who at VH1’s 2008 Rock Honors performing songs off of Quadrophenia.

Pearl Jams are the only other people that can ever do Love Reign O'er Me justice.

All in all, Quadrophenia is a tour de force. It's not so much music as much as it's pure raw emotion. You can feel it. Even after the music stops it resonates with you. It really is a masterpiece of writing that you just do not expect from a rock band. With Quadrophenia, The Who transcend the hard rock genre. They give us something real. Quadrophenia is a culmination of everything The Who stands for. If the band was judged solely on this album, than they should be so lucky.

The Who?

Extreme sword-and-sandal flicks suck

2011-11-13T17:00:00.012-05:00

Myths have never truly been high art. Their age may lend a semblance of class to these stories of old but, in all honesty, they're just nice stories. And that's why they've survived for so long. Oral histories and blind poets spread these stories because they were cool. The stories are a witness to a long dead society, and by being passed on that society is still made full. Its character lives on despite the ruined columns and empty temples. Being mostly passed on through oral histories, these stories lend itself to alteration. No two collections of myths seem to have the exact same story. Yet, while the stories lend themselves to change, it's a bastardization to revamp these stories to fit the extreme attitudes of today.

Just one more insult in a subgenre of mediocrity.

The sword-and-sandal genre was largely forgotten until 2000's Gladiator. A brilliant and epic film, Gladiator is, to me, one of the great movies of the last decade. Gladiator is the kind of movie that lends itself to a type of grandeur rarely seen in today's cinema. It does not ask for this reverence, it instead earns it. Gladiator is one of the few films I can consider new classics (Shawshank Redemption can be another example). These are films that, ten years from now, we'll see them running on TCM (the pinnacle of film channels) instead of reruns on Spike.

Are you not entertained?

Less successful attempts at the genre include Alexander and Troy, two 2004 movies that tried to ape Gladiator's greatness yet missed out on its class. While they may be entertaining in their own right, they do nothing to benefit their genre or their audiences. Instead you get Brad Pitt with a ridiculous accent and Colin Farrell lost in a mess of a movie. After such overbloated failures the genre grew stagnant. There were no more attempts at strapping sandals on overpaid actors. That was until two years later when Zack Snyder took a Frank Miller graphic novel and tricked it out in a glorious fashion.

Glory and gory.

The transgressive sword-and-sandal subgenre first really emerged with the God of War video game series. With the idea still new and fresh, Kratos' bloody revenge on Greek mythology made for an excellent video game experience. A visceral hack-and-slash game that both recognized its shallowness and overcame it. A little after God of War rocked the Playstation 2, 300 premiered in theaters. Taking the idea of mythological epics to new heights, 300 took the fictional part of historical-fiction in an extreme direction.

Step one: Cast Vincent Regan (See Troy, 300 and Clash of the Titans).

And while critics were not huge fans of the film, testosterone fueled frat boys ate it up, if only for them to now have an idea for group Halloween costumes that let them wear a cape. While charming in its style, which has become somewhat of a cliche now, 300 because an archtype. Its slow-mo fight scenes and desire to prove its masculinity has been both spoofed and imitated since it came into theaters. But while 300 was a somewhat fresh take on Greek myth, it has since become stale.

Imitation is, after all, the sincerest form of flattery.

The art of mixing overacting, overblown special effects and thrashing guitar soundtracks have birthed Clash of the Titans and Immortals (Immortals was released last Friday on 11/11/11). Greek myth has lasted thousands of years to be made into a loud, cacophonous mess. The myths themselves are nothing but window-dressing for hollow messes. This isn't a debate about which Kraken was better rendered, the 1981 version or the 2010 version. Instead this is a question of overdoing the Kraken because you have a giant special effects budget and you just know the monster could use more teeth.

Need a Kraken? Why not Zoidberg?

So hopefully this extreme genre dies out. Because while it may of once been exciting, nothing gets boring faster than the extreme. It's just become its own cliche. It even has it's own television show with Starz's Spartacus series. Void of any real meaning, which is the complete opposite of the original myths, the movies are nothing more than quickly made popcorn flicks with tacked on 3-D to raise ticket prices. My judgement against Immortals is even more personal, considering the fact that Theseus was my favorite Greek hero. But then again, maybe I should just be happy that Immortals dethroned Puss in Boots in the box office.

Dreamworks isn't even trying anymore.

The state of the Western

2011-11-09T17:18:00.008-05:00

To use a trite expression, the reports of the Western genre's death have been greatly exaggerated. Look no further than Hell on Wheels, the recent new premiere by AMC. Now, still in it's infancy, it is too early to say whether Hell on Wheels deserves to rank among the rest of the channel's award-winning line up. However, the fact that a major channel such as AMC is even gambling on a Western television show is commendable.

Tell me that doesn't look badass.

I admit, I used to turn my nose up to the genre. I considered the main characters in Westerns to be nothing but hicks and no good story can come of that. I was an appreciator of art and there was no way a cowboy story could constitute art. Luckily, I finally decided to sit down and watch John Wayne with my dad. While I may not be the biggest fan of The Duke, watching Westerns with my dad allowed me to get over my pretension. After getting acquainted with singing cowboys I moved on to the more exciting spaghetti Westerns. I could finally see what made Westerns so cool.

A film as epic as it is long.

You see, nothing represents Americana or the American identity more than the west. Manifest Destiny may have had some major shortcomings but the pioneer days were purely American. Fueled by the lust for gold and the racism against Native Americans, our Western expansion makes for a wonderful platform for a good story. From word of mouth stories, to Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show, to dime store novels, stories of the west made up American folklore and entertainment. One early landmark film, The Great Train Robbery, was by the very definition a Western.

A film as epic as it is short.

While the heyday of the genre is over with that doesn't mean Westerns are completely dead. Hollywood just needs to put trust in the genre again. By trying to mix the storyline with other genres, like in Wild Wild West or Cowboys & Aliens, they are taking away from what makes a pure Western so compelling. Films like True Grit, 3:10 to Yuma and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (one of the most underrated movies of the last decade) prove that modern day Westerns can be incredibly engaging. The Proposition, one of the best Westerns in recent memory, doesn't even take place in America. Instead it transposes itself to the Australian Outback and, despite the location, shows everything that can be done right with the genre.

Rule: If Nick Cave writes the soundtrack it's probably good.

Westerns are the perfect way to examine the darkness of man. Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy may be a Western but it's also the most brutal examination of the human spirit since Joseph Conrad. Even comics books can be an excellent home for the Western genre. Don't let the 2010 flop fool you, Jonah Hex is an awesome comic book character. The movie producers just didn't trust the character enough, resulting in the 81 minute cinematic mess.

Jonah Hex volume 3 was amazing.

So now that Hell on Wheels has premiered, maybe the genre can finally be down right. And, while Deadwood already attempted, the fact that it's on cable and not a channel like HBO is victory enough. AMC has had a pretty good track record so far, let's hope Hell on Wheels is just a continuation of that. Because the Western genre deserves a victory, if only to prove its relevance.

Forget the 5th of November

2011-11-06T19:34:00.009-05:00

It really is strange how some things catch on. V for Vendetta was a decent hit in the box office, making $130 million. But with it's semi-modest success, V has made a peculiar impact on society. Now every Nov. 5, fans make sure that nobody forgets the 5th. But while Guy Fawkes Night has had a royalist theme for hundreds of years, misinformed fans and pseudo-intellectuals are shaping Guy Fawkes Night into their own kind of celebration. A celebration that just rings false in every way.

I'm starting to get sick of this face.

Produced by the Wachowskis, 2006's V for Vendetta was a nicely watered down revolutionist's dream. In an effort to make it more appealing and easier to swallow for general audiences, the original graphic novel was watered down to be popular but edgy enough to sell V masks. It's no wonder Alan Moore distrusts film adaptations so much. Each attempt studios have had with his work has just fallen with a dud. Instead of a gripping world of gray, the film offers the same jackbooted thugs that every other Orwellian film offers. Now that's nothing against Orwellian stories. I personally love dystopian stories. The difference with the V film is that it could have been so much more of a statement. Plus I loved the original graphic novel before the movie was made.

I liked V before he was popular.

Now, every Nov. 5, people feel the need to post about V on Facebook. These people need to realize that V is not an actual person. He is a fictional person, not a revolutionary to be idolized. The original V character in the graphic novel was practically a psychopath, something far from a role model. And those that use Guy Fawkes Night for their own futon revolutionary ideas miss the whole original point of Guy Fawkes Night. It's not a celebration of revolutionaries, it's the opposite. What they are celebrating every year on that night is the Gunpowder Plot failing and Fawkes' execution. That's why they collect a "penny for the Guy" and burn his effigy. But what was originally an inspired bit of irony by Alan Moore has led to a mass misinterpretation by fanboys. It's like if British people started celebrating Thanksgiving, but from the Native American's point of view.

The real Guy Fawkes wasn't a revolutionary, he was just Catholic.

There is no greater perpetrator of this bastardization of tradition than Anonymous, the hacker collective. When not found trolling around the 4chan website, these hackers fashion themselves as revolutionaries. By using their computer skills and love of wearing V masks, Anonymous hope to further whatever agenda they come up with on 4chan to bully anyone they don't like into submission. While they do pick some nice targets, such as Scientology, every /b/ board member I've met has been nothing more than a socially inept jerk. This may be a complete generalization but, unlike most that are against Anonymous, I've actually been around them. It all happened my senior year of high school when I was in Philadelphia.

They're not revolutionaries, they're just brats.

We were in the middle of a Philly adventure, taking pictures in front of the LOVE sign, when we noticed a large group of people amassing in front of City Hall. My friends and I, bored and curious, decided to walk over. Most were wearing V for Vendetta masks, some were decked out in cosplay like outfits. In our boredom and hoping we could get a cool V mask as well, we followed the protest. Turns out a Scientology Temple was going to be put in Philly and the local Anons decided to do something about it. While using their right to protest is commendable, hearing them talk just ruined it for me. Those that were properly informed on the subject seemed to of gotten all their information from South Park episodes. The rest appeared to just like being in a group and wearing masks. Their supposed biggest strength, their anonymity, instead turns them into faceless stormtroopers. Indiscernible from their brethren, they just seemed to enjoy joining a faceless bully organization.

Pictured: Not me (I was holding the camera).

I have no faith in Anonymous or anyone that hides behind a V mask. I'm not demonizing Anonymous like most news organizations. I just see them for what they are, confused kids who just want to do something to change the world. And while V might of had a point when he talked about the importance of symbols and ideas, hiding behind a V mask has just become trite. Statements shouldn't be made with mass market Halloween masks. And besides, as previously stated, V was a fictional character who wasn't even that much of a hero to begin with. So please, let us forget the 5th of November. Repeating the poem in a status every year is just childish.

Ten year anniversary of Grand Theft Auto III

2011-10-30T21:04:00.002-04:00

"I know a place on the edge of the Red Light District where we can lay low, but my hands are all messed up so you better drive brother."

With those words, us gamers were introduced to the morbid Grand Theft Auto saga. As depraved as the series may be, Grand Theft Auto also represents a genius reflection of society. The series isn't just a playground for sadistic playing but also a statement about society as a whole. The storyline itself may not of amounted to much more than the standard vengeance and mafioso story. But the masterpiece of the games have never been the plot line. Instead it's the world building that has allowed the franchise to last a decade. Liberty City isn't just a a bunch of unexplorable buildings. It's a cynical representation of modern society as a whole. And exploring the American dream through the city has never gotten old.

It's not a game it's an experience.

I've never played the first two Grand Theft Autos and I doubt anyone my age has either. I've seen them in the bargain bins of game stores, but they never had the allure that the third entry did. GTA3 brought with it a maturity not really seen in games at the time. There were better looking games and more compelling games, but few games matched the anarchic fun of the original. Even today the game is fun to play because of it's simple wish fulfillment. I'm not saying that everybody that picks up the game is a sadist in training, but there is something empowering about the freedom allotted to the player. There are main missions and even side missions, but a lot of people never even bothered playing them. Instead we were instantly attracted to the ability to cause whatever chaos we imagined in the game world.

Now that I'm older though, I can see what upset my mother so much.

Released on Oct. 22, it's hard to believe that it's been ten years since the release. I still remember sitting in middle school lunch and hearing with morbid curiosity my friend's ability to run down old ladies in a stolen taxi. Those that accused the game of being a murder simulator didn't really give the gamers any credit. Yes even those my age were a bit too young for the levels of violence, but we understood the line between fake violence and real violence. None of us were impressionable enough to take the violence at face value, we knew it was all fake. Despite what Jack Thompson may argue, the game had no ill effects after the system was turned off.

Jack Thompson, failed anti-video game activist.

My first taste of GTA was sleeping over my friend's house. He showed me with great glee the ability to run around and cause mayhem. Violence wasn't even our goal. We were more interested in exploring the game world because it was nothing we've seen before. Sandbox games are ubiquitous now but then it was a revolution. Rocket launchers and tanks weren't weapons of destruction but tools we used to test the freedom the game world allowed, just like the radio stations and fast cars were. And while virtual cops tried to police the city, they were nothing but another level of the game to compete against.

Trying to survive against SWAT teams was part of the fun.

To this day I don't think my mother knows I owned GTA, I think she still believes I'm borrowing it from my friend Joe (sorry ma). But that inherent sense of wrongdoing every time I popped the disc in my PS2 only added to the allure. I knew what I was doing wasn't wrong, but the idea that it could be wrong was simply seductive. My friends and I wasted a lot of afternoons passing the control around and topping each others acts of violence. We would see how many cars we can collect in one parking garage or defend a parking lot from waves of police. Even seeing who can pilot the Dodo aircraft for the longest led to competition between me and my brother.

He was the better Dodo flier, I'll admit.

It's hard to defend such actions as paying a prostitute and beating her up to get your cash back (which I've done in the video game, it's just good economics), but unless you played it you don't know how little a deal it was. Shooting people and stealing taxi cabs was violent but also encouraged, even if it wasn't a part of the main mission goals. Not to say the missions weren't fun, but it was how you completed the missions that was the real treat. Now the gamer could dictate how they prepared for the mission, even if it meant piling up eight tanks in the street "just in case you needed them." That's where cheats came in.

It's a shame that video games has lost it's way in this respect. Nowadays, cheating is both frowned upon and penaltalized in games. But back before the gamerscore it made for some of the best game experiences I've had. There's a reason why I still have all the cheats from GTA3 memorized to this day. It simply added to the fun. Something as simple as weapons and health cheats opened up the game world to more mayhem. My personal favorite was the riot and "everybody has weapons" cheat. There is nothing more exhilarating than driving around and watching bagladies with RPGs. I just wish videogames still supported such user freedom.

Even the newer GTA games prefer you not to cheat.

Rockstar is one of the leading game designers today because they earned that title. GTA3 alone revolutionized gaming today with its social commentary, sandbox design and top quality production. GTA3 forced other game companies to catch up and for good reason. Even something as simple as quality voice acting set the game apart from everything else in the market. And the series is still going strong ten years later because shooting a random pedestrian in the face still has it's charm. Not to say it isn't wrong, but the gameworld of GTA has its own rules. We were just living in it.

Don't call me Millennial

2011-10-22T19:40:00.011-04:00

It's hard to sum up a whole generation. Especially in this day and age, where lifestyles vary and differ so greatly, it is increasingly hard to come up with a name for my age-bracket. Sociologists love to stick a label on something and just like with every other field, I assume, it's a race to be the person to come up with that label. Everybody wants to be the next Gertrude Stein, summing up a whole group of people whose only common factor is the span in which they are born. But while the title of the "Lost Generation" is poetic, each passing generational label has tried and failed to grasp at its resonance.

I love the word resonance.

Those born between the mid-1980s-to-1990s are just too young to be truly defined with one title. All the other generations were allowed to prove themselves a bit. There is no doubt that the Greatest Generation (or, less dramatic, the G.I. Generation) earned their title. Baby Boomers, sadly, were named only by the degree of their propagation. Generation X's general dissatisfaction and outgoing spirit led to both their name and a romantic comedy starring Winona Ryder.

The early 90s film market was saturated with films like this.

The fact is, these past generations didn't look for names, the names found them. But, even before my generation filled out, naming attempts have been made. Lame attempts like Generation Y or Generation Next have been coined but none has stuck. Generation Y is insulting in its insistence in describing us as simple continuations of Generation X, but it's hardly the worse name. The name I hate the most would be Millennial. Millennial is just one more sad attempt to identify a group of people that has yet to identify themselves and it insults us.

It's the biggest cultural insult since Kidz Bop.

We are not the Millennials. To label my generation Millennials means that our only definable trait is the fact that we were born around the year 2000. While we were all born around that time, it's hardly reason to name us after it. It's an unnecessary nickname that means nothing to anyone. It tells nothing of our character or general disposition. Instead it traps us into mediocrity, like a schoolyard nickname.

Some people never get over being called MC Pee Pants in elementary school.

What scares me is the name might actually stick. It's been passed around enough, social analyzers and talking heads wearing it like a new pair of pants. We as a generation cannot let them lazily refer to us as Millennials though. Because we are capable of so much more than that. Though they claim otherwise I can't imagine someone from my generation actually coming up with the term Millennial. It just rings soulless and hollow. It's just too early to reflect on the younger generation. It's like when VH1 ran I Love the New Millennium back in 2007, before the decade was even over. Let the identity sink in before you feel the need to commentate on it. Let us instead find ourselves.

I just hope we don't become the "Occupy Generation" in a year.

Network television rips off Mad Men

2011-10-12T00:29:00.012-04:00

Update: I meant to but I forgot to include The Hour, a BBC series that's similar to Mad Men.

Nostalgia is a powerful thing. It allows us to remember the past in a purely crystallized way. Thanks to nostalgia, we actually remember All That! as being a funny show. Thanks to nostalgia, we all had excellent relationships with our fathers and our girlfriends were the sweetest women in the world. Recently, network television has been trying to tap into the market of early '60s nostalgia, which Mad Men previously cornered the market on. In doing so though, what they're really attempting is to bring nostalgia to a time period that never existed.

Look at the fun they're having in the past.

The '60s were turbulent times full of great change and conflict. The whole decade was really just one glorified transitional period from the button-downed '50s to the wild '70s (with some drugs thrown in for good measure). And we even went to the moon. The networks have since created a prepackaged illusion of the '60s, popularized by Mad Men and bowdlerized baby-boomer stories. Pan Am and Playboy Club don't offer a respective look at a different time. Instead they offer a snow globe of kitsch, with some period-appropriate drama whenever it's convenient. Hell these are the television networks that ban smoking on most shows. How could they ever properly represent the '60s?

The '60s ran on paranoia and nicotine.

The comparison to Mad Men is unavoidable. Four years ago a slow-burn drama set in the '60s sounded like a bomb waiting to happen. Hell, all the networks passed on it. Even HBO and Showtime didn't want to gamble with it. AMC took Matthew Weiner's show in and it has payed off wonderfully for the channel. Having just won its fourth straight Emmy for Best Drama, Mad Men is the undisputed critical darling. And now, four years late to the party, ABC and NBC want to cash in on the era.

Amber Heard's hotness couldn't even save Playboy Club.

This is usually the portion where I predict the failure of both shows but Playboy Club already beat me to it. It took just three episodes for the show to fall flat on its face. Terra Nova even succeeded in finding an audience and that's just a Jurassic Park/Avatar mashup (Stephen Lang plays the same dude in both productions). And the funny thing is, Playboy Club and Pan Am are just as fanciful as Terra Nova. It's just further escapism. Critics and audiences seem to prefer Pan Am though.

The show is bolstered by Christina Ricci's big-headed appeal.

These two shows premiering right next to each other just shows how behind the networks are creatively. They're forced to ape previously existing successes, but with their own spin to make it their own. What they don't realize is that if they took chances with original programming than they could be the trendsetters, instead of having to go by what cable successes dictate. Even coping successes can turn into colossal failures, such as Playboy Club, so the network should take this as a lesson. That and everything that could be said about the '60s is already being done wonderfully on Mad Men (whether it be sexism, racism or general pigheadedness). What's the point of loading up a plane with forced-feminist when Mad Men's Peggy Olsen does it so much more effortlessly? If the shows had anything new to say than the story would be different but that's just their problem. The stories aren't different, only the settings.

I'll just watch New Girl instead. God I love Zooey.

Always Sunny loses its charm

2011-10-06T20:47:00.006-04:00

I've always enjoyed It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Being from South Jersey, I hold the area and Philly very close to my heart. The city of Philadelphia itself has always been a place of good memories to me. Philly is by no means a large city, but that's why I like it. I feel like the city has a lot more charm than New York City. Yes, North Jersey folk may refer to NYC as "the city," but us real Jersey people know what the real city is. If you have never gone on a Philly adventure, I highly recommend it.

This picture is submitted without comment.

With my love of Philadelphia, I was excited when I first heard about Always Sunny. The first season was perfect and, with the addition of Danny DeVito, the second season even blew the doors off the first. Somewhere though, the show lost it's way. I wouldn't dare say that the show jumped the shark (a phrase that holds no meaning anymore), but the show has definitely lost it's spark. Which is a shame, because last season I thought it was a step in the right direction. But now with the new season, they have resorted, once again, to senseless shock. The following is an article I wrote for my school paper about last season's premiere. I post it now because I feel it perfectly illustrates what I think makes a good Always Sunny episode (plus I have too much homework to write anything new).

Who seriously thought this was a good marketing poster?

The show that launched a million green men is back. It’s pretty much impossible to go to a sporting event anymore without seeing a person wearing a green spandex bodysuit. It’s all thanks to It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

The sixth season of the FX show premiered on Thursday, Sept. 16.

Ever since the show made its debut in 2005, it has been known for its edginess. This year’s premiere lived up to the standard of a show that’s referred to itself as “Seinfeld on crack.”

The first episode dealt was jammed pack with issues, such as gay marriage, slavery, suicide, the Bible and even the safety of eating food found in alleyways. However, it’s not the issues that make this show so much as its characters. It’s Always Sunny has been an ensemble-driven show since the start.

The show deal with worldly issues, but only on the personal level of the five main characters, referred to in the episode titles as “the gang.” Having them deal with their situations in their own patented way allows for the individual characters to shine and become fleshed out. Although they sometimes devolve to cartoonish levels – Charlie especially falls victim to this – their personalities still shine through each irreverent storyline.

The season premiere represented a return to the character-driven comedy that defined the series early in its run. At points in last year’s season, the shows’ plot lines became somewhat ridiculous. While it still made for good television, the crux of the show was lost in its willingness to venture into the absurd.

That’s why the relatively low-key premiere is a good sign for this season. The gang is still a bunch of selfish people looking to milk the system. But the comedy lies in the personalities, not the situation. That’s what makes “It’s Always Sunny” so lovable: not about issues being taken to their illogical extremes, but the characters and their chemistry.

The only issue with the first episode was the blatant product placement throughout. Paddy’s Pub, the bar owned by the gang, sells Coors; there is no need to constantly be reminded about it. When Mac runs into the bar with news about his transsexual ex-girlfriend, the viewer is assaulted with Coors logos. The rampant product placement and even the placement of a Subway restaurant is probably more the fault of the network than anything else, but that doesn’t excuse it.

Despite the advertising drawbacks, the first episode indicates what could be an excellent season for an always enjoyable show. It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia airs Thursdays on FX at 10 p.m.

And R.I.P. Steve Jobs

Next time on Arrested Development...

2011-10-04T20:04:00.012-04:00

I am not much of a television watcher. Growing up I absorbed as many movies as I could, however, when it came to television I just watched whatever was on. I have shows that I watch but there are very few shows I watch regularly, much less since the first episode. Yet sometimes a show catches my eye and I am inexplicably drawn to it. In 2003, a show premiered on Fox that I fell in love with (It ranks No. 1 on my all time television list). Now the story of a wealthy family who lost everything and the one son who had no choice but to keep them all together. It's Arrested Development.

My Arrested Development DVDs are prized possessions.

Dysfunctional family had been done before. Hell, on Fox alone shows like Malcolm in the Middle and Titus cornered the market on messed up families. Arrested Development, however, did it with a kind of class like nobody else. What drew people to the show was the characters and storytelling. To say that Arrested Development had one of the best casts around is not hyperbolic whatsoever. Each actor fearlessly became a member of the Bluth family: even if it meant having a crush on your cousin or trying to become a member of the Blue Man Group. And each character brought something that added to the hilarity of the show.

It's so hard to pick a favorite.

Arrested Development was, sadly, ahead of it's time. Although a critical darling, it never acquired enough of an audience to sustain itself. Thankfully though, avid watchers such as myself make sure to force the show upon anybody willing to watch. And you know what? Those people end up falling in love with it too. It's a show about an unlikable family, but it does so with so much charm that it's impossible not to love. Each character is ridiculous but never over the top, even when they have a puppet on their hand.

GIFSoup

Not only was it hilarious but its storytelling and continuity rivaled most other shows. To its detriment, most of the jokes required previous knowledge of the show. While these callbacks could be frustrating for some viewers, they also made for the most rewarding jokes for fans. This is why the show plays so much better as a DVD marathon. It's so easy to mainline a season and see the jokes build up for hilarious payoffs.

Pictured: Wrong Arrested Development.

Though it was cancelled, the cast all went on to continued success. Most surprising of all was Michael Cera's blossoming from awkward teenager to awkward post-teenager that hipster chicks claim to love. Five years after it went off the air, Arrested Development consistently remains at the top of most, if not all, lists for best sitcom. With the success of a similarly themed show (As a matter of principle I refuse to watch Modern Family), it's no wonder there are talks of bringing it back.

Come on!

Even before Arrested Development was canceled (the network made a huge mistake) there were rumors of its saving. There was even an episode devoted to begging for another network to take it. But after years of waiting, Arrested Development is finally coming back, and in a big way. The movie has finally been confirmed after years of rumors and there is even talks of bringing the show back for a season. A new seasons worth of shows is probably more of a way for people to get caught up with the show's dense continuity, but that's fine with me. I just want to spend more time with the Bluths.

They taught me how breakfast is the most important thing.

Arrested Development has stood the test of time, not because it is easy to love, but because it gives us reason to love it. The show was a product of the time it was made, with Enron failing and the war in Iraq. The show created a whole world of shallow people and their vapid lives but, in their self-centeredness, they were also the most hilarious people to watch on television. It never took the easy laugh, instead making us work to remember to always leave a note and to always watch out for the cornballer. Just being able to hear Ron Howard's narration once again brings joy into my life.

Cue the ukelele music.

Disney's money machine and Lion King 3-D reigning at the box office

2011-09-30T17:36:00.014-04:00

Update: With the success of Lion King 3-D, Disney now plans on releasing more 3-D versions of classics. This further proves that Disney will do anything for money.

When children think of Disney they picture a magical land where their favorite movies are born and, if they are lucky, one day they can travel to Florida and share in the wonderful world of Disney. As we get older and more cynical, Disney is no longer a magical kingdom. Though the cursive in The Walt Disney Company's logo is cute, the company itself is one of the most ruthless around. After all, while it wasn't Disney's idea to kill Bambi's mom, they did decide to whore out the story further with a direct-to-video sequel.

With Patrick Stewart voicing Bambi's father.

The thing of it is, Disney will do anything for money. The very idea of the Disney Vault is just used to create a false sense of urgency for their movies. Not only do they try to make money with their "limited time" DVD releases, they also butcher those classics with direct-to-video sequels (much like the aforementioned Bambi sequel). Again you can't fault a business for making money but the cognitive dissonance between the fluffy Mickey Mouse doll you have and the sweatshops used to make it cheap is astounding.

Note: I do not actually know if Disney uses sweatshops. It was only mentioned for dramatic effect.

I still enjoy Disney movies though. They are charming and enjoyable and we all grew up with them. And there is no movie that represents our generation of Disney movies than The Lion King. Out of all the movies during the Disney Renaissance (lasting from 1989-1999), Lion King was the most appealing to everyone and had the most to say. As a dude, I didn't want to watch singing princesses. But lions are badass. And not just any lions but lions that sound like Jeremy Irons and Darth Vader.

And Matthew Broderick, in his only good role other than Ferris Bueller.

Even with two direct-to-video sequels, a television show based on Timon and Pumbaa's adventures, an award-winning Broadway play, a ridiculously hard Sega Genesis game and countless Lion King scented hand soaps, the film still had class. Lion King is untouchable. Even with 3-D being the soulless, shallow cash grab that it is, Lion King 3-D still sounded amazing. So amazing that I am legitimately disappointed in myself I missed seeing it in theaters.

The Circle of Life alone would of been mind blowing in 3-D (and it would make an excellent alarm clock ring).

Everybody else must of thought so too. In the two weeks that Lion King 3-D was in theaters, it made over $100 million dollars (meaning it made twice as much as Conan the Barbarian). Lion King owned the two weeks it was in theaters and denied Moneyball a number one opening spot. While the inflated price of 3-D tickets could be taken in to factor most 3-D movies' success, the numbers don't reflect that in this instance. The box office was such a slaughter that it proves the release wasn't just a marketing ploy but an event.

See the word sex in glorious 3-D.

Disney is a company fueled by timelessness. It's the only reason they have survived for so long on the same intellectual property. Even Tomorrowland, their amusement park view of the future has a certain timelessness. Lion King, even though it was only released in 1994, is imbued with that very same trait. It was an instant classic that spoke to everyone that watched it. And hopefully, with this much needed success of Lion King's re-release, Disney finds that timelessness again.

Timelessness is sometimes confused with racism.

Aside from Princess and the Frog (which seems to of been made more for selling African-American princess dolls), Disney's animation showing has been incredibly weak. Every movie released since the new millennium has been incredibly forgettable and devoid of the Disney charm. They have depended on Pixar for making new classics ever since but with the release of Cars 2, Pixar has lost some of its luster.

Technically a success, but at what cost?

Hopefully Lion King's success spurs Disney to go back to what they do best, repackage previously existing material and making it appealing to kids. I say this with all the love I can but if The Brothers Grimm could sue Disney they would be rich. Disney's success is built off already existing properties. Even Mickey Mouse is based of Oswald the Rabbit. And they still defend their properties with such ruthlessness they they sued a daycare for a mural they painted of some characters.

South Park may have had a point after all.

Even Lion King isn't bulletproof. Story influences for Lion King range from tribal epics, the Bible and even Shakespeare. One influence that you might not hear is Kimba the White Lion, a Japanese anime series from the 60s. Shots from both movies and some names have been compared and, while some points may be nit-picky, the Kimba people definitely have a point. But all the same, I don't let that give Lion King a black eye. Because Lion King is one of my favorite Disney movies.

Still pretty fishy though.

Nouveau Facebook, aka the new Facebook

2011-09-25T18:40:00.011-04:00

For my blog, I rely entirely too much on Facebook. It has become a normal occurrence to see me link a new blog on Facebook, in a desperate plea for page views and attention. But my spamming ways are endangered. Though I have always had a healthy stream of Google hits, my friends reading from Facebook links has always been my viewership backbone. Facebook's new newsfeed setup makes it harder for me to force my prose upon you, dear reader. And it is because of that I take up arms against it.

I really do love this "Deer Reader" picture. I hope the person whose Flicker I stole it from doesn't mind.

Facebook is the ethereal device with which all our social lives become entangled. Unless you're paranoid about your privacy or a stuck-up contrarian, you have a Facebook (most likely, as we speak, it is constantly open in some far-flung browser tab). With our social lives so dictated by the iconoclastic social network, every little cosmetic change sends a giant ripple in a very small social-pond. We all feel it and we all have an opinion on it, however minute that opinion may be.

This is me adding more fuel to a pointless fire.

As I stated once before, Facebook became popular for its simplicity. It was no frills. It was intuitive. It was addicting. We all signed up for Facebook because it was the bare essentials for the social-interactive experience. With each update, Facebook began to lose its soul. For each innovation, a part of the simple experience of liking the status of a girl you met at a party became flashier. All of our overstimulated senses were further battered with more newsfeeds and options. In short, Facebook sold its soul and lost its way.

Mark learned nothing from Tom.

Facebook doesn't see it that way. They see themselves as evolving to fit a more interactive market. What they don't realize is that the vertical integration of social media is self-destructive, like a drunk scorpion stinging itself. People come to Facebook for Facebook. And while they had plenty of room to experiment before, Google+ has changed that. Google+ is the first real competitor that Facebook has had and while the website deflated under its own hype, the new Facebook might just be the boost that Google needs. When your users are the product you are selling, such as with social media, the organization cannot afford to lose anyone to the competition. Especially a competitor as fierce and evil as Google.

On second thought, maybe I shouldn't bemoan the owners of my blogger service.

The truth is, all this whining means nothing. That may seem like a cheap point to make towards the tail end of an opinion piece but bear with me. We make our statuses complaining about the new Facebook, but the irony is we still use Facebook to complain about it. We are so helplessly addicted that we can't even admit we have a problem. Blinded by our own dependence and self-interest, we stick with the beast for fear of never actually being heard. Each update of Facebook has been met with backlashes yet eventually we all get use to it. That's the beauty of humanity, we get use to anything. And if anybody looked at any screenshots of the beginnings of Facebook, it would look as alien as the changes do today.

Facebook circa 2007.

Does this mean I will no longer use Facebook? Not in the slightest. I still appreciate the product. And, as stated earlier, I depend on it for you to read this very blog. And all the chain letters in the world will not mean anything to the people who control the bandwidth. As long as it is free it will be used. Make no mistake. Despite what the chain letters may say (I read all chain letters like they are being read through a blow horn by an eight-year-old girl), it will always be free. Facebook is making too much money off us already. They don't need any more from us.

"Yo, check and see if she has any beach pictures in her photo album."

Charlie Sheen: Wild and crazy guy Part Deux

2011-09-21T12:41:00.011-04:00

I generally try and avoid retreading on old topics. Old news is old news and I would hate to alienate what few readers I have by repeating myself. But with the premiere of CBS' revamped Two and a Half Men and the Comedy Central Roast of Charlie Sheen occurring a few nights ago, I thought it was time to once again open up the Sheen file.

Gotta love sequels.

The backstage antics of television is always ripe with controversy. From the Quiz Show scandals to Suzanne Somers being kicked off Three's Company to the various battles over the Tonight Show, we forget that television is an industry and industry has always been about money. We forget that the cast of Friends are just five people being paid an exorbitant amount of money to act like they've known each other all their lives. The people on television are real people. Except, of course, for Sheen. If it's one thing he's tried to prove this past year, it's that he is more than human.

Yo.

Sheen did something that no other actor does when in the middle of a dispute or followed by cameras, he embraced them. He not only created a hype machine around himself, he sold tickets to it. Conan O'Brien also used the media to his advantage during his debacle, but he didn't go nearly as far as Sheen did. For O'Brien, his career was on the line. For Sheen, his career and personal reputation was in danger. And instead of trying to brush it all under the rug he turned himself into a martyr for his winning way of life. His Comedy Central Roast was just an extension of that martyrdom.

In case you missed it, it'll be rerun 20 times this week.

Now, I hate Comedy Central Roasts. I find them to be the ultimate in lazy television. They are relatively cheap to make and hyped enough to fill up a huge chunk of the scheduling for the next two months. Comedy Central Roasts are a stable for bad comics who find it easier to be mean than it is to be funny. As an audience we have suffered through eight years of Jeffrey Ross' struggle towards comedy and jokes about Lisa Lampanelli's taste in men. It all gets old after awhile. With Sheen, however, they finally had a subject that was literally begging to be roasted. Roasts normally reserved for stars that have gone past their prime. Easy targets with nothing to lose because they have nothing left for them. Sheen is different. For Sheen it wasn't so much an easy ratings grab but a statement.

As opposed to Larry the Cable Guy or Flavor Flav's roast.

Sheen's roast was brilliantly scheduled the same night as Two and a Half Men's season premiere. CBS has hyped the new season heavily. Billboards and popups all over show Ashton Kutcher's grin where Sheen once stood. It remains to be seen whether Kutcher's charm can save the show (he was pretty awesome on That '70s Show), considering the fact that there has only been one Sheen-less episode. Who knows, maybe he can be replaceable on a show built around his own personality. But thanks to the Comedy Central Roast, Sheen at least had the last say.

I'll say it: Kutcher is probably the best replacement they could have found.

By sacrificing himself, Sheen is just offering himself to rebirth. The only question is, what will he do now that he's a punchline. He really is no longer a person, he is just a walking caricature of himself. So where does that leave him now? What can he possibly do now that his tiger-blood act has reached critical mass? During his roast, he claimed that he is no longer winning. He claims that he has already won. But with the dust just now settling on a year-long publicity battle, I think it's too early to declare a victor.

Bad marketing and the Straw Dogs remake

2011-09-16T00:11:00.011-04:00

Dustin Hoffman owned the '70s. Before Ishtar and Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium he starred in films like The Graduate, Midnight Cowboy, Little Big Man, Lenny, All the President's Men, Marathon Man and Kramer vs. Kramer. Any actor would be proud to have their name attached to any of these flicks, yet in 12 years Hoffman made some of the best movies during the New Hollywood Era. A huge accomplishment for somebody once voted "least likely to succeed" in acting school. Really makes you rethink those high school superlatives, eh?

His school obviously didn't have a "most likely to play a badass Captain Hook" superlative.

Released in 1971, Straw Dogs was one such classic. A violent, challenging film, Straw Dogs was released during a time where realistic violence was just hitting the screen. Gangsters and cowboys were always getting shot, but it never went past any emotion than "point the gun at the bad-guy-wearing-black." Hoffman, defending himself and his wife against a group of sociopath, British rednecks made the perfect forum for questions about human nature, gender roles and barbaric instinct. Though a cult film, it even managed to remain remembered after being released the same year as Clockwork Orange, The French Connection and Dirty Harry.

Does he have a unibrow in this poster?

The movie remains just as shocking and impacting as it did in 1971. So, since there is no reason to remake such a film, Hollywood has went along and decided to release a Straw Dogs remake set to premiere this Friday. And since I haven't seen it yet (until I go to sleep, today is still technically Thursday) I can't judge how the remake holds up. Going by the trailer however, this remake seems to of lost all the class and esteem of the original.

Even the poster loses a bit of subtlety.

I have no problem with them moving the setting to the South. I have no problem with Cyclops starring in Hoffman's role (I've always kind of liked James Marsden). It's the general tone that the trailers seem to convey that throws me off. The original is a psychological thriller that explodes in violence towards the end. The remake, though I have not seen it yet, seems to take its tone from more contemporary horror films. Instead of a slow, simmering boil we instead have The Strangers without masks.

The masks being the best part of The Strangers.

Maybe the marketing team are hoping to capitalize on the first fall thriller, but even though the original was violent it was far from today's torture porn. The original had something to say. The remake just seems hollow and if it does try and attempt to say anything it will most likely be obvious and heavy-handed. A message placed on a silver platter instead of one that challenges us. Plus, while Alexander Skarsgard will most likely put in a wonderful performance, the trailer obviously uses him to entice True Blood fans into living out their fantasies of Eric Northman and his impetuousness.

Even when successful, stunt-casting is still stunt casting.

The remake will most likely prove to be nothing but what the title suggests, a form without substance.If it does suprise anyone with its depth, it's only because the marketing failed so completely. Instead of the controversial, raw and engaging original, it will most likely be another movie lost in the fall shuffle. Another bland thriller that, despite its attempt, has nothing new to say or show. That is, of course, the nature of remakes.

The 9/11 Post

2011-09-11T19:03:00.013-04:00

I originally wanted to avoid writing this post. While yes, I was as affected by 9/11 just as much as everyone else, I didn't feel worthy enough to really comment on it. Being in South Jersey, I'm just insulated enough from New York to be spared a lot of the heartache. I am lucky enough to not really know anyone that died in the attack and my horizon line was not inundated with smoke and ash. But being a member of the generation that grew up watching the towers fall down, I can't help but still feel like a member of the grieving nation.

None of us have to be reminded.

I already told my 9/11 story in my Osama post. I was only 11 years old when it happened but I remember being at soccer practice that evening and we couldn't even bring our 6th grade selves to do warm up sprints. With the 24/7 news machine working, we as a population were reminded of the tragedy repeatedly. From that blood lust came war that we are still in today. I'm not here to debate the war, I'm only commenting on the fact that lives are still being affected by one morning ten years ago.

One respectable reflection on 9/11 has been Rescue Me. Although the show lost some focus during its seven seasons, Denis Leary showed real respect and admiration to the fire fighters and other people affected by 9/11. It's not like Remember Me, a 2010 Robert Pattinson vehicle that aspired to be like every other Nicolas Sparks story made for teenage girls. Instead, using the World Trade Center attacks as a plot device, it ended up reeking of explotation just to remind 16-year-old girls to fall in love with Pattinson.

Pattinson should stick with the Twilight movies.

For the most part, Hollywood has yet to touch on 9/11. The only two theatrical films dealing with attack are World Trade Center and Flight 93. This is for good reason. None of us need to be reminded. It's too early for dramatizations because the effects are still being felt by a whole population. We don't need Oliver Stone telling us how to feel because it is still fresh in our minds. No reminders needed, television documentaries and memories are enough. To make a movie about it now only screams of propaganda or excessive patriotism.

Sadly, an unnecessary film.

It's ironic that Stone was the one to make an unnecessary World Trade Center movie, because he was the one to really kick off movies made about Vietnam. One of the first real Vietnam movies was The Green Berets starring John Wayne. Released in 1968, the same year that both the Tet offensive happened and Walter Cronkite himself bemoaned Vietnam, The Green Berets tried its best to rally support for the already exhausting war. But even The Duke couldn't help rally a nation and, aside from Apocalypse Now in 1979 (a very noteworthy film), Vietnam wouldn't be touched again until 1986 with Platoon. Eleven years after the fall of Saigon, Stone told the story of his own experience during the conflict. Unflinching and dramatic, Platoon won four Academy Awards, including Best Picture. The following year saw the release of Full Metal Jacket and Hamburger Hill and in 1989, Stone returned to Vietnam with Born on the Fourth of July.

I'd mention 1989's Casualties of War but I hate Sean Penn too much to go in depth.

Just like with Vietnam, it will take a while to properly reflect on 9/11. It's too soon to really see what the effect is because we are still seeing the effect everyday. There is no proper epilogue yet to the story. While Bin Laden's death did help closure, it's not enough. Ten years from now we'll see real movies about a post-9/11 world that's not just about paranoia or patriotism. Because by then the dust from the towers will finally settle and the ones that grew up with the disaster will finally get their say on the matter. I am of course talking about my generation.

Just don't call us Millenials, I hate that phrase.

People my age may seem jaded by the 2001 attacks, but we've all reacted to it in different ways. Some have become conspiracy theorists or socialists. Others have followed Fox News and Sarah Palin. There is one factor I've noticed with everyone though. We've all acquired this kind of post-modern patriotism. It's not simply about humming Yankee Doodle Dandy anymore. For people my age, America Fuck Yeah (excuse the profanity) has become the rally call. From the creators of South Park, America Fuck Yeah was written for the puppet comedy Team America: World Police. And even if that movie falls into obscurity, the song will live on as a new anthem for current college-aged kids. Although a satire of jingoistic tunes, it is earnest enough to speak to us. And it has a sense of humor that cannot be found in Tobey Keith songs.

Profane but effective.

So, even though it is the tenth year anniversary of 9/11, it is still just one more day in a constant state of mourning that many feel. But we continue on and, floor by floor, we defiantly build in ground zero. One day we will all finally be able to look back at this period instead of feeling trapped within it.

Kismet and on demand

2011-09-10T18:00:00.008-04:00

Defining the divine. I do not consider myself a religious man. When asked, I define my faith as lapsed Catholic at best. My opinion on faith and destiny relies purely on how much sleep I've had that day or if I'm having any luck with women (currently the answer to both of those questions is no). But sometimes the universe surprises me. Sometimes little hints pop through my day that relieves my existential burden. Being a movie fan, it's only characteristic of my existence that these hints mostly involve movies.

The words universe, fate and God are all interchangeable in this post.

It doesn't always happen, but sometimes the universe provides me with exactly what I want and need. It's never any unimportant things like world peace or a bag full of non-sequential hundred dollar bills, but the smaller things that have so much for resonance than the bigger things. Much like, for me, the miracle of what's on television. We've all noticed it before in some respect. When we have just the exact amount of change for our food order or when we get a text message just when we need one. The world is full of coincidence, and no coincidence is ever too small to go unnoticed.

Serendipity: not just a John Cusack flick.

A month ago I was struck with the desire to watch About a Boy. Technically in chick-flick territory, About a Boy is a guilty pleasure propelled by Hugh Grant's rakish charm and a soundtrack by Badly Drawn Boy. Yes, I do own the DVD but I was too lazy to dig it out of my movie pile. Flipping through channels on my only day off that week, there it was, inexplicably on Showtime. It was just what I wanted, hand delivered to me. Even though it's just a romantic comedy, About a Boy makes you happy despite all the saccharine and cliches. A few days later I found another movie I not just wanted to see but also needed to see.

I like this movie, don't judge me.

I've always wanted to see the movie Marty. Written by the irreplaceable Paddy Chayefsky, Marty is about a butcher played by Ernest Borgnine that's unlucky in love and who has lost control of his life. Over the course of 94 minutes and a date with a mousey girl, Marty decides to take initiative and make himself happy. It's a simple yet very effective film that I've been wanted to watch for awhile and just when I needed it the most, I found it on demand under Turner Classic Movies.

TCM has always been there for me.

Marty is the kind of movie that motivates you to get out of your rut, and that's just the kind of sentiment I needed to hear at the time. More cynical people would call my outlook superstitious or immature. It takes somebody very self centered to think the stars align for them. While I can be described as self-centered a bit (one needs to be to write a blog), I can't help but smile whenever something small goes my way. Because sometimes those small things mean more than the big ones. And even something as simple as what's on television can mean a lot to somebody. That or, it saves me from having to look for the DVD.

Start of a new year and a return to the blogosphere

2011-09-08T17:39:00.008-04:00

In today's day and age, media analyzers try awfully hard to create new words. With technology permeating our everyday lives, it's a race to come up with all of these new phrases and a race to take credit for them. Which brings me to my excuse for not updating for a month. For the month of August, I decided to go on blogcation.

There it is, my addition to the English language. Samuel Johnson has got nothing on me.

Blogcation has probably already been used as a word before now, but with no listing in the two biggest vocabulary reference tools around (Webster's and Urban Dictionary), I will now take credit for the word. You see, after spending a year posting twice a week, I figured I was due for some relaxation. A nice little blogcation to regain my concentration and come up with future ideas. I feel I earned some relaxation time, even if that relaxation time consisted of having two jobs and taking up jogging.

This is how I picture myself as I jog.

I didn't want to cheat you, dear reader, by making you read the work of a burnt out misanthrope. So I took some time off. Now that I'm back at school, I have no excuse for not writing again. And after spending a month brainstorming ideas, I hope for a nice return to form in my blog writing. Having people read my work is its own reward.

That and the accumulation of page views.

So be on the lookout for new posts by me throughout the week. For any prospective guest bloggers, the invitation to write a post is still open to anyone interested. It's time to pick up right where we left off in our blogger/reader relationship. And I can't wait to continue that relationship. In case you feel I am missing a topic you would like to discuss, you can also suggest anything that you feel is worthy of comment. Remember, I'm not just here to rant, I'm here to be your guide to pop culture.

I'm like a cultural Sherpa.

So welcome back to me. Here's to what should be an awesome year.

Reruns: The ultimate test of a sitcom

2011-07-24T22:06:00.010-04:00

Every season, networks trot out a whole new lineup of fall television shows in a desperate bid for viewer attention and, by extension, advertising dollars. Television is a massive money making business and syndication may just be the biggest part of that capitalistic pie. Syndication makes or breaks many television shows. It may even give them new life. Initial airings may decide the baseline popularity of a show, but it's reruns that make a show an institution.

Exhibit A: Seinfeld reruns being on eight different channels.

For the most part, syndication is both genius and lazy. Not only does it make people millions of dollars, but it also makes the program scheduler's job a little easier. Ask people my age what time they watch television and I guarantee that the answer is not 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. For people I know, the answer is normally 4 p.m. when they are suppose to be doing homework or 2 a.m. when they should be going to sleep. The prime time lineup, the cornerstone of programing, is lost on 18-22 year olds. We have been raised to turn to television in times of desperation and boredom, but it's not at the same time as everyone else. Even before digital cable and online streaming, reruns were one of the first steps in making television convenient.

Waiting for my laundry has more influence on when I watch television than anything else.

There is nothing to watch at two in the morning. Adult Swim's lineup is a godsend but at that time of night, even AS doesn't help anything. Around this time I like to check out the random channels and watch the Miracle Blade commercials, but there are only so many gem stones you can see on the Home Shopping Network before you go insane (sidebar: there is a channel devoted to traffic cameras. It's highly enthralling). But sometimes you get lucky, and a rerun of That '70s Show is on at an ungodly hour. There is probably no show that my generation identifies with more than That '70s Show. Think of it as our version of Happy Days (another show for adolescents about their parent's adolescence). Watching '70s Show has become a ritual but never when it was on FOX.

The immortal male question: Donna or Jackie?

Obviously '70s Show was popular enough to last eight seasons but it didn't truly become an institution until it started airing on cable. Whether FX knew it or not, they scheduled episodes around most the time my friends and I got out of class. So, resting our laurels, we would instinctively turn on the television and with nothing to watch we turned to what appealed to us: '70s Show. Or Scrubs. Or Law & Order SVU.

It all depends on the mood and how far the remote is.

Another program is on the rise in syndication. The show has finally given men a reason to watch Lifetime Channel (after they cancelled Supermarket Sweep, which I still mourn). In 2005 How I Met Your Mother premiered on CBS. While not an outright success like Two and a Half Men or Big Bang Theory, How I Met Your Mother built a devoted but semi-modest fanbase. I only knew a handful of people from my high school that actually watched it. This is all pre-syndication. Now, the majority of my friends have been obsessing over the show (mostly because of Neil Patrick Harris' Barney, who is an awesome character). A year ago my sister couldn't force my brother to watch the show. After recently watching it in reruns, he has since rapidly inhaled the six past seasons.

I'm a Ted surrounded by would-be Barneys.

Every season, networks trot out a whole new lineup of fall television shows in a desperate bid for viewer attention and yet most of these shows fail. Few shows become popular enough for syndication (or they just get picked up for syndication because nobody hates it, a la King of Queens). But syndication can also breath new life into a show. Freaks and Geeks only lasted a season but now its few episodes live on immortally on cable. My personal favorite show, Arrested Development, can now be discovered by anyone that missed the genius the first time. And in the greatest success story in all of television, Family Guy was even saved from cancellation by reruns on Adult Swim. Whether you love the show or hate it (or let South Park tell you to hate it), it's undeniable how miraculous Family Guy's saving was.

It may be derivative but I enjoy the show.

Because of reruns, Family Guy went from Fox's sacrificial lamb (Fox bumped it around the schedule in its early history against Who Wants To Be A Millionaire during the game show's heyday). As a more personal success story, consider this. My one friend never watched a single episode of Friends until our sophomore year of college. After watching a rerun, we devoted spring semester to watching all 10 seasons of the show. That's 236 episodes of Rachel, Monica, Phoebe, Joey, Chandler and Ross mainlined into our collective brains. And this was all because one of our friends caught a repeat.

Guest Blog: Glenn Beck's final episode

2011-07-21T12:34:00.008-04:00

I asked for bloggers and now I have to own up to it. At least once a week I'll try and post a guest blog on top of my two. This week's blog comes from Frank, the first of my guest bloggers to return for another go. Any comments I make are in italics.

-Don Woods

I am an odd person. I will be the first person to admit this. One odd thing that I love to do is watch shows that I completely disagree with. It is one of my biggest guilty pleasures. I do not do this so that I can yell at the television (I leave that job to watching sports). Instead I like to just listen to different viewpoints and think to myself. One of my favorite shows to do this with just ended. On June 30 the Glenn Beck show aired its final episode on FOX News. I did not watch this show all the time, just every once in a blue moon. It was entertainment to me. Every time Beck said something crazy or acted out in ways only he could I was entertained. Beck was able to come up with ideas that would make me think. Not think that he was right in anyway, just make me think. Now, Beck isn’t falling off the face of the earth. Beck has left his show but will be still explaining his view points and trying too, “save the soul of the country” (his words not mine). He will be continuing his crusade on his new Beck TV online show. This will air every week day for two hours and can be watched by anyone … who pays a monthly or yearly fee. Since I will not be paying for this, because I do not care that much, I think I will list my favorite things about Beck, and wait patiently for him to say something controversial on his online show so that all other news organizations will talk about it. In honor of his 9/12 project I will list nine of them.

He's got the whole world, in his hands.

1. The Crying: Beck has shown over the years that he is a very emotional man. His crying has been one of the favorite trademarks of Beck. It seems to have gone on to be the popular thing to do if you are a conservative. Beck has cried many times on his show. He did not cry during his last episode (If you bet me that he wouldn’t you would have definitely walked away with some of my money) but throughout his show he has been known to shed a tear over his love of country.

Go to 2 min 22 sec to just see crying

2. The Chalk Board: This has been another trademark of Beck. In his last episode Beck brought to light a startling revelation. Beck was actually thinking of getting rid of the chalk board. Luckily for all of us casual viewers one of his camera men, Oscar, told him to keep it. Thank you Oscar. Oscar saved the best teaching tool that Beck had. With his chalk board Beck was able to warn his audience about the dangers of liberals, progressives and the dark arts. Actually defense against the dark arts is only taught in Hogwarts (they are also the only other place that still uses chalkboards). Now that Beck is moving to the internet maybe he will advance to a smart board.

I hate whiteboards. And having a whiteboard on your

dorm room door is only an excuse for people to creatively draw dicks.

3. Sarah Palin: Glenn Beck has never been shy about his love for Sarah Palin. As a casual viewer I can tell you this is because they have so much in common. Each has conservative values and a common home life. Both Beck and Palin have a child with Down Syndrome. This has brought Beck to celebrate and defend the often attacked Palin. Now this is not why I like the connection between Palin and Beck. The entire reason that this is the third favorite thing about Beck’s show is one interview that Beck did with Palin. It is possibly the greatest example of, “Hey that Palin person isn’t too smart is she”. It took Palin 22 second to answer George Washington to Beck’s question, “Whose your favorite founding father”. The 22 seconds was filled with Palin rambling and Beck saying, “Bull crap”. (fast forward to 4:33 to get the question)

Mama Grizzly herself.

4. His Shoes: The man wore sneakers with a suite. This is just humorous to me and was such a part of his oddness. That’s all I really have to say about that.

Sneakers help give him street-cred. It worked for Fred Rodgers.

5. Beck Being Beck. Glenn Beck is an interesting human being. Beck has created a persona that captivates people who love him and people who cannot stand him. He has the style of Andy Bernard (My brother came up with this and we both mean no disrespect to the Nard Dog) and the crazy host rants of Howard Beale. Beck is just an enigma. He believes there are evil progressives destroying the country and decides he will tell the world this through acting like a crazy radio host.

As a lover of the film Network, I despise all parallels to Beck and Peter Finch's character.

6. Obama is a Racist: One of my personal favorite moments happened when Beck was not on his own show. When Beck was on the Fox morning show, “FOX and Friends”, Beck came out and said that he thought President Obama was a racist. Beck said this while talking about the controversial idea Obama came up with to deal with the Henry Louis Gates arrest. He later backed tracked on the statement but it is still one of the best moments in Beck’s history at the station.

7. Magnets: Beck brought up how many magnets he has in his last episode. He stated that he actually had employees who just made magnets for him. The magnets were usually pictures of people or organizations. The people were Obama, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and anyone that had to be connected to evil or socialism. The signs were usually a swastika, a communist sickle, ACORN or unions. Having these magnets just seemed awkward to me. Did they have to go to a magnet store (or wherever one would go to buy large magnets of peoples faces) to get this done or did they just have a magnet maker in the studio? How awkward do you think it was for the individuals on magnet duty if they had to go to a magnet store? They had to get some odd looks. “You framed an Asia poster? How hard did the people at the frame store laugh when you brought this in?” The line from the “40 Year Old Virgin” was all I could think about when I saw his magnets.

Magnets, how do they work?

8. Glen Beck Satire: Poking fun at Glenn Beck has been one of my favorite parts of Beck being relevant. Everyone has done it. The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and Saturday Night Live have all taken turns making fun of Beck. The Daily Show has done an entire show in the Glenn Beck style. The Colbert Report decided to poke fun at one segment that Beck did called the War Room. This was where Beck created scenarios in the future that would be devastating to America. Colbert decided to do his own version called the Doom Bunker (Here is Beck’s and Colbert’s. I do not know which one is funnier). Saturday Night Live has had veteran funny man Jason Sudeikis impersonate Beck during their skits about Fox News. All of these have made me laugh. I thank Beck and these comedians for brightening my nights (or mornings when I watch them online).

His literature will live on.

9. Why New York is influenced by communism: This is by far my favorite conspiracy theory that Beck has ever had. An episode was spent on Beck explaining the communist influence on New York Cities’ architecture. He showed paintings and sculptures in many of the buildings at Rockefeller Center and showed how they are direct correlations to communist and progressive and their ideas. He was trying to show how right under the American people noses progressives were and are influencing our lives. He showed statues that represented communist ideals, mainly the hammer and sickle imagery, and paintings that have the faces of famous progressives and communist painted in them. When I saw this episode I thought, “Come one man”. I think this example best sum up the crazy conspiracy side of Beck. Conspiracy Beck is the best kind of Beck and is why he is one of my guilty pleasures.

-Frank Mahoney

First Signs one year anniversary

2011-07-19T18:34:00.009-04:00

There is nothing more precious than your child's first birthday. You spend the whole first year worrying if they will even make it to the ripe old age of one. Now, while my blog is not even comparable to a child, the rule applies. There is a certain sense of validation after being around for a year (yes, validation). It has been a trying year, but I'm happy to see I actually made it this far and stuck with it.

Unlike my promise to jump rope regularly.

One year ago today I first sat down and went to work on this blog. The main motivation, admittingly, was boredom. Pop culture was the only thing I could really talk about with any conviction, so the topic decision was easy. To be honest though, I wasn't sure if I had it in me to keep going for a year. I started this blog wanting to say something new, but I was happy with saying something at least worthwhile. What I settled on, for the most part, was saying anything at all. Reading my past postings, I can't say I liked all of them. I do like a good amount of them though. I'm even proud to of written a few of them.

What I don't regret are my two panda posts.

A strange thing happened as the first months rolled by. People actually started reading my stuff. Not just glancing either but people were actually interested in what I had to say. It felt pretty good. In a years time I've accumulated, at the time of my writing, 19,587. I feel like that's a number to be proud of for someone that is just doing this for giggles. It makes me happy that I took two days out of my week to write a quick post (even if it meant writing two posts on Sunday). My friends even became familiar with my complaints about it being blog day (then again, I complain a lot anyway). Either way, all the Facebook clicks and Google hits have meant a lot. Even if it's someone that's just looking for a picture of Chicago Hope.

You would be surprised how many people Googled Chicago Hope pictures.

A year is slowly becoming less and less of a milestone. Getting older means time goes by faster. And time going by faster is a pain in the ass. A year ago I was different. In the time since I started writing this blog, I became of age to drink legally (and I admit to making home in a few bars), I'm now going into my senior year of college and I've even become an uncle.

This was also the year I watched the Wire.

I'd like to thank you, dear reader, for sticking with me and reading what I have to say. I hope my writing has gotten better since I began. If it hasn't, then I hope it gets better by next year. I want to thank my friends who regularly read this, my family who put up with me and anybody else that may stumble upon my meager blog. I enjoyed writing on here for a year, and I will continue to write. So once again, thank you dear reader.

Yo.

The demise of NJN

2011-07-17T20:01:00.001-04:00

I was too hard on public broadcasting in my Pawn Stars post. In that post I mentioned that nothing cool could ever come from public broadcasting. It is only now that I admit that was a lie. Just an excuse for a cheap gag. In actuality, I'm a fan of public broadcasting. I'll be the first to admit that a state network is important. This, however, is one opinion that New Jersey and I differ on. On June 30, the New Jersey Network, which has been in operation since 1971, ceased operation.

Gone, and probably will be forgotten in a few years.

In the state's herculean task to cut spending, NJN was offered up as a sacrifice. But really, public broadcasting can't cost that much. Yes, the state is footing the bill a bit, but the bill is worth it. Is the state really scrounging for every nickle and dime it can like a teenager rummaging through couch cushions? Being an affiliate with PBS, the public helped pay for NJN. And if the public is helping pay for it, that should be cause enough to try and keep it.

We're only constantly reminded that before and after every program.

With the doors of NJN closing, that meant 130 people lost their jobs. Gov. Chris Christie may see this as a sacrifice to the greater good of the state, but at the end of the day it's just 130 people unemployed. This isn't like Christie's attempt at cutting the budgetary fat in education (which I also had problems with), this is the termination of an institution that was there long before Christie came around.

Christie's governorship is the fuel for many a family's dinner table debate.

Public broadcasting should fall under the public trust doctrine. Each state's network is for the benefit of that public and is tailor made for each state's demographic. The programming helps retain the state's identity. Of all states, Jersey needs to keep this alive. We're a state brimming with character and charm. And while we're being caricatured on MTV and every other Jersey-bandwagon jumping show, there needs to be a place on television reserved for a more respectful view of the Garden State. But to base New Jersey-centric television in New York, like the plan is now, is completely disrespectful.

NJN lets you look at Jersey past each Exit ramp.

NJN will live on somehow. It was an institution that has been around for 40 years. There's a legacy in there. Every movie-day in science class taken from a teacher's worn out VHS tape, NJN'll be there. Every recorded episode of Nova, NJN'll be there. Ever time a New Jersey child hugs their Elmo doll, NJN'll be there. And every pledge-drive tote bag being used by an old lady when she's grocery shopping, NJN'll be there too.

Now if you'll excuse me, Breaking Bad premieres tonight and I need to get properly pumped up.

Nancy Grace and Casey Anthony

2011-07-12T21:18:00.012-04:00

My grandmother (whom I affectionately refer to as Nana) loves Nancy Grace. She watches HLN every night and devours everything Grace has to say. And as much as I love my Nana, I can't help but disapprove of her HLN addiction. To me, Grace has always been a horrible excuse for a human being. She's a bully, a narcissist and a war hawk for the justice system. While many of her supporters may love her for these very same reasons, I can't help but hold contempt for her.

Unholy beast.

For the most part, Grace was nothing more than a sideshow. On the fringe of cable news television, HLN (formerly Headline News) always grasped straws at what news was. Numerous times, when discussing the channel, I've referred to it as the "Lost White-Girl Network". Every human interest story and new "it" suburban tragedy finds itself done to death on the network and, specifically, on Grace's program. If CNN is the Time Magazine of cable news, than HLN is the People Magazine.

On the off chance I ever need to depend on People for future job prospects,
I apologize now for harsh words.

Grace spewed her hatred on a cable news channel watched mostly by bored housewives. And that's where she belonged, in her own corner away from any real journalism (I'll reserve the debate on the necessity for 24-hour cable news for another day). Now and then Grace takes up a special cause to rally around and, in her own passion for the topic, kills it into the ground. She falsely called for the heads of Duke lacrosse players and even got told off by Elizabeth Smart, one of her previous pet projects. But my worst fears have been realized as of late. In the circus that was the Casey Anthony trial, Grace found a perfect podium for her rhetoric. And the ratings have never been better.

R.I.P. Caylee

Grace actually has people listening to her now. Not just her usual devoted followers (my Nana included), but now a whole nation was watching her. If O.J. Simpson was the trial of the century than this was the trial of the new millennium. And unlike during O.J.'s reign, information is now instant and over-saturated. I remember when Caylee first went missing. I was actually in Orlando around the time it happened, on a family vacation. I remembered seeing the billboards and feeling sorry for the family. Three years later, the case has finally erupted into the storm it was destined to be.

One family's tragedy, another family's dinner table conversation.

Now, I'm not here to judge Casey Anthony's guilt. Everyone else in the world has done that enough. I'm just taken aback by the reaction. The case definitely deserves media attention, with its unusualness, heartbreak and the fact that the Anthony family has put themselves in the spotlight (aforementioned billboards). While she was found acquitted (remember, it's not like she was found innocent), a nation calls for her blood. And at the front of that charge is Grace, in all her blonde-bobbed glory.

I mentioned my use of memes in gauging news before.

Nancy Grace is not a mad prophet of the airwaves. She's not a leader in the cause of justice. She's just a crazy women with a hard on for missing white women. She's overzealously thrown herself into any case with a whiff of media attention, and now one of those piles of crap have finally paid off for her. It remains to be seen how she keeps up the momentum of her new-found credibility, (I imagine six-months worth of Casey Anthony trial reactions) but she will milk this for as much as it's worth. Not because of justice but because now she has people watching her rants and belittling interview style. Casey Anthony was definitely not innocent but her guilt is still unclear enough to be debatable. Grace is neither judge, jury or executioner. She's just a lady with a big mouth.

Grace talking about the Duke Lacrosse case, for which they were falsely accused.

Linkin Park: The official band of Transformers

2011-07-10T21:16:00.009-04:00

I previously stated how my friends and I all grew up loving Taking Back Sunday. Well, before TBS there was another band we all enjoyed. While many may deny their love of the band, everyone I know liked Linkin Park at some point. Anyone that says they didn't like them is lying. It was impossible not to when they came out in 2000. While their relevancy may have diminished in the years since Hybrid Theory, their debut album, the band has reinvented themselves. They have since become the official/unofficial band of the Transformers film series. I'll let you decide whether that's selling out or not.

You can't sell out with holes in your ears, it's a proven fact.

Linkin Park erupted onto the scene with Hybrid Theory. While critics met the album lukewarmly, pre-teens bought it up. Linkin Park took the nu metal sound that saturated the modern rock stations and made it whiny enough to be identifiable. Instead of Fred Durst rapping about nookie or Korn, well, just being Korn, Linkin Park packaged the sound into an easily digestible morsel. Korn was for people that wore JNCO jeans and you didn't talk to in the hallway. Linkin Park was for everyone.

And everyone bought it.

Anyone that claims to like some form of rock listened to and probably owned Hybrid Theory. It was too ubiquitous to escape from. They owned the radio. And their music videos were interesting and numerous enough to guarantee MTV airplay. They even partied with Jay-Z. In the two albums they were relevant with, Hybrid Theory and Meteora, they had 10 singles between them. That's a whole album's worth of songs for 13-year-old me to rock out too. And rock out I did.

Sometimes the CD player would skip, I rocked out so much.

Linkin Park was there for my middle school angst. I had my first girlfriend in 7th grade. The only time we ever spoke was when I asked her to date me. A week and a few instant message conversations later and we were through. She dumped me. In my first experience with heartbreak, I turned to Linkin Park. They understood my pain and frustration. They sang the feelings that I was too young to properly express. In the End was especially comforting. They really felt my Mickey-Mouse pain.

One of my favorite descriptions for childish things is referring to it as Mickey Mouse.

I don't mean to show Linkin Park any disrespect, because I really did like them a lot when I was in middle school. I even did a class project on them once. I'm still sore about never getting my copy of Meteora back from my friend from down the street. But, after Hybrid Theory and Meteora, Linkin Park faded out. The rap/rock combination was no longer cool. While defining them as rap/rock didn't quite do them justice, they were still pigeon-holed in that genre. And when the genre lost relevancy, so did Linkin Park. I almost forgot about them until Transformers came out in 2007. All three movies have been major blockbusters, and Linkin Park supplied the big single for each iteration.

Must be a pretty sweet gig.

Linkin Park's future is now linked with Transformers, which isn't too bad for them. The first two Transformers, while not loved critically, made more than a billion worldwide. Transformers: Dark of the Moon, released June 29, is poised to be another megahit. And though it is horrible to say, I don't believe Linkin Park have sold out by being linked with Michael Bay's extravaganza. Because, before 2007, Linkin Park were completely forgotten. Bay's trilogy resurrected the band and allowed them to be heard by a new generation of whiny preteens. And that isn't so bad.

Arguably their best song and, in my opinion, the one that has had the most staying power.

The first Transformers was a remake of Small Soldiers

2011-07-10T20:33:00.009-04:00

A boy, lost in suburbia, gets mixed up in a rivalry between two groups of inanimate objects. The boy helps the good-guys win and in the end wins the affection of the girl of his dreams. While yes, this plot could describe most movies directed towards the male 13-18 demographic, there are two movies in particular I want to talk about. To me, 2007's Transformers and 1998's Small Soldiers are the same basic movie.

Bear with me, dear reader.

Comparing basic plot points, both movies are basically identical. Both involve two lines of toys battling it out. While yes, a car is a much bigger toy than an action figure, a car is basically and adult's toy. Grown men and children are both passionate and protective over their toys. And the fact that Transformers is based off of a toy line helps my argument further. While Transformers has Autobots and Decepticons, Small Soldiers has Commando Elite and Gorgonites. Basically, Transformers is just Small Soldiers on a much larger scale.

The Autobot logo has a five-head.

It is true that the Transformers franchise has been around since the 80s, but remember that I'm not talking about the franchise itself but just the first movie. Both movies involve awkward teenagers thrust into action by inanimate objects. And getting the girl in the end helps a lot too. And while I've always had a crush on Kirsten Dunst since her Spider-Man days, it's hard not to leer at Megan Fox's, now iconic, engine checking.

[Insert dip-stick joke here]

Probably the most interesting reason for the comparison, to me, is Kevin Dunn. Dunn plays the bumbling father in both movies. And the roles are pretty much interchangeable. Now yes, there are only so many ways to play a frazzled father, but to me this is the main link to both movies. Transformers may very well be a hidden remake to the modest 1998 hit. Or maybe even a quasi-sequel. Maybe Dunn's character secretly had two families.

It's always the people you least expect.

Really, in the end, I just want more people to know about Small Soldiers. Because I remember enjoying it as a kid. It's like Transformers enough to be noteworthy. Small Soldiers is even, arguably, better than Transformers. Both are dumb popcorn movies but Small Soldiers has more heart. Transformers is just a big car commercial. And Small Soldiers was Phil Hartman's last film. That's reason enough to check it out.

The popularity of junk shows

2011-07-03T19:36:00.008-04:00

Contrary to popular belief, one man's trash is, in fact, another man's trash. There is no treasure to be found at estate sales, flea markets, swap meets or any other gathering that involves the sale of musty smelly trinkets that old people collect. Somehow, there is a whole niche audience that loves watching people find diamonds in piles of trash. This is the only explanation for the recent rash of shows revolving around junk. Pawn Stars is one of the most popular shows on cable, and now it has lots of competition.

Who says television stars have to be glamorous?

Really, the whole concept can be traced back to Antiques Roadshow. Roadshow has been popular since it first started airing in the United States. People would flock to find if their antique ottoman was a secret to vast riches. The thing of it is, while popular, Antiques Roadshow aired on PBS and nothing cool ever emerged out of public broadcasting (sorry Fred Rodgers). When Pawn Stars premiered in 2009, it took the Roadshow format and put a nice white-trash spin on it.

There's gold in them thar homes.

But even with unlikable stars and Rick's wheezy laugh, Pawn Stars blew up. History Channel, being the whore that it has become, replicated the success with American Pickers. Now, many have condemned the Pickers for swindling lonely folks out of their possessions, and their points may but valid, but those people are whiners. This is capitalism here. Yes the men may be pushy and shady about their deals (especially the fat one), but these guys are living off trash. You can't have scruples when you make a living off of junk. And they might dress up their show, saying it's about finding artifacts, but that's just pretension. Finding a tin gas station sign does not make it historical. The show is really about two things: man-love between two grown men and capitalism. If you don't like that, you're a commie.

"Buy for a nickle, sell for a dime." -Prop Joe (The Wire)

With two big hits centered around junk, all the other channels began copying off of History Channel. Discovery Channel has Oddities and Auction Kings, truTV has Hardcore Pawn, Spike has Auction Hunters, A&E has Storage Wars, Syfy has Hollywood Treasure (a movie-memorabilia spin on American Pickers) and National Geographic has Flea Man. And each show is as derivative and uninspired as it sounds.

I was very disappointed to find out Flea Man was about flea markets.

Now everyone thinks their junk is worth a fortune. Masses are visiting yard sales, hoping to find the Ark of the Covenant next to the old PEZ dispensers and VHS tapes. And this market of junk is probably ruining the speculator's market. All of these shows base their earnings on auction prices, but with a surge in tin signs found in old garages, the earnings are just going to drop. In the meantime, people are just hoarding their collectors pieces waiting for the dust gathering objects to turn a profit before it gets too much rat poop on it to be unsellable.

Thrift stores, now for prospectors along with lower-middle class people and hipsters.

These shows are only validating the people who look to sell their grandparents belongings for a quick buck. Heirlooms are no longer prized family possessions but are instead a quick way to make a few hundred bucks. There is now another outlet for people's greed, only this time it's junk being abused. And though some people make it big with a limited edition toy car, most of the artifacts are really just junk. The only value is an intrinsic and personal value. Junk should be about emotional attachment, not Laurel and Hardy giving you a price on an old bicycle.

I hate the fat one.

Taking Back Sunday: The band that defined my adolescence

2011-06-30T21:10:00.012-04:00

Choosing a band that everyone in the car will like is tricky. In fact, picking the wrong music is downright barbarous. With my group of friends, however, the answer is easy. Taking Back Sunday is a band that we all, inexplicably, love. Now, love isn't an easy word for me to say, just ask any girl I've ever dated. I normally reserve the word for my dog Marley or The Third Man. But Taking Back Sunday is a band I love. When compared to all my other music taste it is a total outlier. It's arguable that screamo deserves a place next to The Strokes, Radiohead and Tom Waits in my top bands, but to be fair, my top five doesn't do Taking Back Sunday justice. They aren't just a band to me, they are a summation of my adolescent and formidable years.

I'm afraid to admit the play count on this album.

Many argue that their lyrics are whiny. Prepackaged angst that has never evolved past its initial selling-point. And in a way these concerns are valid. But that's not to say that the music is reserved for those in arrested development. It is this thematic consistency that allows one to rally around Adam Lazzara swinging his microphone around (mics are for singing and swinging). And listening to the harmonies and breakdowns brings the listener back to high school, when Taking Back Sunday had their golden age. And the music forgoes the pretension that has weighed Brand New down with every new album.

Brand New: good music, crappy album titles

With the release of their new, self-titled album on June 28, Taking Back Sunday returns with the classic Tell All Your Friends lineup. News that my friends found very exciting. As I stated before, my friends and I all love Taking Back Sunday, their first two albums to be exact. It takes a special kind of fan to memorize a bands song. Taking it to the next level, my friends and I have gone to memorize two albums worth of songs and sing them any chance we get. Per tradition, while on our annual spring break road trip, New Jersey is devoted entirely to the band we all worship. And by the time we reach Gloucester County, we have all lost our voice singing along as loud as we can.

We sing majestically.

And when we are all together, and someone is playing the part of ipod DJ (which is, more often than not, myself) there is nothing more gratifying than putting on Cute Without The 'E' and watching thirty people rally around their mutual love of screaming out music we all grew up with. Music that was there for us on bus rides to school, mix tapes for the girl we liked or gatherings we had with our friends. Taking Back Sunday Singalongs aren't just a mutual understanding, it's an institution. And I can't think of any other band or song I've stayed up till 5 a.m. just to sing along with my friends to.

Except for maybe Build Me Up Buttercup, I sing the hell out of that song.

The self-titled album might prove to be a disappointment (as much as I love Interpol, their self-titled left a little to be desired), but the fact remains that Taking Back Sunday takes up an important place in my life. Even with the minor disappointment of 2009's New Again, the fact remains that you can put on Tell All Your Friends and Where You Want To Be on anywhere in (at least) south Jersey and get everyone on board.

I'm unsure whether to declare this a Jersey-phenomenon or not. Do other states love TBS?

Last New Years I spent at an acquaintance's house, mostly not leaving the same corner as my friends. It was fun though, and as midnight approached we crowded the television to watch the ball drop, kissed whoever was next to us and mumbled the lyrics to Auld Lang Syne. We celebrated 2011 the same way our parents, their parents, Lieutenant Dan and Forrest Gump have before us. But once the champagne popped and the pomp wore off, we went back to playing beer pong and rang in the new year in our generation's own characteristic way. We had a Taking Back Sunday singalong. And for the next hour everyone at the party, most of which were people I didn't know, sang along to the songs we all loved. And we will continue to love those songs, because they are so dear to us.

New album out now.

The Rise and Fall of Myspace

2011-06-25T18:48:00.015-04:00

In a report by 24/7 Wall St., ten brands were listed as on their way to extinction. The list had Sears, Sony Pictures, American Apparel, Nokia, Saab, A&W Restaurants, Soap Opera Digest, Sony Ericsson and even Kellog's Corn Pops. While the inclusion of these companies on the list is not an outright death sentence, things are dire enough to be noticed. One company that particularly caught my eye was Myspace. Myspace, the once gargantuan social networking playground, appears to be on its way out. While that may be no surprise to those that have abandoned Myspace for Facebook (such as myself), it's still interesting to observe the meteoric rise and fall of the once ubiquitous friend site.

I wonder if Tom has a Facebook?

I joined in 2006 (I think it was 2006 because it was when I first got my braces off). Before Myspace really hit it big, self-involved pre-teens relied on Xanga and Angelfire websites. Social networking didn't really go past having an AOL Instant Messaging profile, complete with Green Day lyrics or declarations of schoolyard love in different colored type and comic sans font. Myspace was a place where we could all play in the same narcissistic sandbox. It was an extension of the worst parts of interpersonal relationships. There is no understanding or law on Myspace. There is only battles for Top 8 membership and chain-mail bulletins.

A place for friends, enemies, acquaintances and photos taken in bathrooms.

Like most guys in my school, I made my Myspace at the insistence of a girl. She was a girl, she was a friend, but she was never anything more. I was too naive to realize my crush on her, however I did make a point to slow dance with her every school dance (I was a slow dancing machine). She even supplied me with my first photo. In rebellion of the Top 8 paradigm I chose my Top 8 favorite comedians instead of being forced to choose my friends. Then I realized how lame I was being and finally dove face first into Myspace.

Myspace was so long ago, my login consisted of my Compuserve email.

I mostly used Myspace to pimp out my interests. I didn't have an obnoxious amount of pictures or a Top 32. The four years I had my Myspace account activated I never once changed my background. For many, changing the background and style sheets was a part of their individual expression. Me: I just thought it slowed my computer down when I tried to visit their page. I mostly just posted music and Youtube videos. I would use a certain theme and then send a bulletin out for people to watch the videos I chose. To this day I have no idea if anybody actually went to my page to see the videos or if they were just annoyed. I'd like to think people enjoyed it.

Just how I hope people enjoy my blog.

Myspace did have its problems. Like all of the internet back then, Myspace was seen as a stalker paradise (which was true for the most part). Hyper-sexualized adolescences who never heard of Lolita put themselves out on their profile pages. But, overall, Myspace was innocent. It was mostly just an over-glorified way to publicize your garage band. It never made any adaptations or advancements in the social network field. Myspace instead sat back and assumed that its reign would be forever. Then Facebook came out and, it just seemed classier. Myspace was too loud. Visiting someone's Myspace was a race to the pause button so you didn't have to listen to their music. Facebook was more streamlined and more mature. All the trappings of Myspace were left out. And individuals such as myself flocked to the relatively new website.

You don't see Myspace with an Oscar-nominated flick.

All of the careers launched by Myspace are now as stagnant as the website itself. Tila Tequila was once billed as the most popular person on Myspace, back when a statement like that actually sounded like it meant something. Two CDs, a television show, a book and one lesbian sex tape later, Tequila is mostly forgotten by now. Dane Cook also rose to fame through the social networking site. When he started out, Cook was nothing but a hyper-active comedian on stage. After being one of the first comedians to make his own Myspace, he had a legit following. Whether you hate him or not, it's impossible to deny the draw Cook had for a four-year span between 2003's Harmful If Swallowed and 2007's show in Madison Square Garden. Myspace is, arguably, the main reason for these two star's infamy. Their whole careers were propelled by the Myspace phenomenon. And, just like Myspace, they are now merely footnotes in popular culture.

To be fair, I didn't have the hatred for Cook that others experienced.
I completely admit to the fact that I owned his first two albums and
memorized most of the jokes.

The Facebook migration was slow to come for many. I wasn't too sure of Facebook at first, so I tried to maintain both accounts. Eventually though, Myspace just lost out. Anybody nowadays that admit to still using the dying network are met with condescension and nostalgia. Its time is over and, like 24/7 Wall St. noted, the brand will probably fade away into obscurity soon. I erased my Myspace in 2010. I stopped using in 2008, but just never bothered to erase it until 2010. The day I erased my Myspace was an important day for me. It was closing a chapter on my previous life. In all honesty, it felt like growing up. It remains to be seen whether Facebook falls for the same trappings as Myspace, but for now Facebook is stronger than ever. The social network is dead, long live the social network.

Consider this a time capsule for the younger, more innocent Myspace days.

Guest Blog: Stewart V. O'Reilly

2011-06-23T13:15:00.006-04:00

I asked for bloggers and now I have to own up to it. At least once a week I'll try and post a guest blog on top of my two. This week's blog comes from Frank, the future POTUS. And please for once, click on the links I give you. Any comments I make are in italics.

-Don Woods

When I saw the opportunity to be a guest writer for “First Sign of Trouble” I thought I would give it a shot. I was hesitant at first because I do not claim to be an expert on anything and do not think I am an Andy Rooney type of person. I thought about writing on a political issue since I am a political science major. I did not, however, want to write about a political issue like, healthcare, securing the border or anything like that. I hate being put through talks like that so I would never do it to complete strangers. For me it would be talking about the funnier side of politics. The fascinating news stories like Trump and his presidential run, Biden being Biden or anything that Glen Beck says (that’s a little unfair he probably is not crazy all the time) were all ideas that ran through my mind but nothing stuck out. That was until I heard that Jon Stewart was going to be on the O’Reilly Factor on May 7. That news was music to my politically geeky ears.
Now I should start out by telling you that I am a huge fan of Stewart and his show, The Daily Show. He and Stephen Colbert, to me, are some of the funniest and most brilliant people alive (I will so regret this later if either one has a terrible scandal they could never come back from). So, talking about Stewart in a debate/discussion with one of the kings of Fox News may be a little bias. To ease the bias I will come out and say that even though I am not a big fan a Fox News and their hosts, I have nothing but respect for O’Reilly. I do see him as mightier than all bully who treats people with opposite view point’s like they are lesser beings. But, the man is a legend. He has one of the most successful shows in cable news history, if not the most successful (I did not fact check this, but it is pretty much the tagline of his show so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt). He is a strong opinionated host who asks great questions, brings on different viewpoints and debates his opponents with the ferocity of an animal going after their unprepared pray (Bear comes to mind but that may be because of Colbert). He is a political fixture and when he and Stewart come together it is, in my opinion, amazing.

Two opposites combining, kind of like peanut butter and jelly.

The topic that brought them together was a controversy about Common, a rapper [by the way misspelled rapper originally by forgetting the second p (or, if you choose, the first p) which makes the sentence completely different] was invited to a poetry reading at the White House. Fox News did a lot of segments on the controversy saying he was not the type of person who should be invited to the White House. O’Reilly himself was unhappy about it because Common wrote lyrics about two convicted cop killers. Stewart and the folks at the Daily Show decided that all the attention on this issue was ridicules and did what they do best. If you haven’t seen the two segments you should.

I think they should of gotten Busta to do it.

Now probably hundreds of people wrote on this subject and my approach is probably not that original. I thought that I would take this opportunity to bring up how impressive these two men were in the debate. Stewart and O’Reilly possesses an amazing wit during this or any of their other debates. This is because, in my opinion, they respect the hell out of each other. They come from different backgrounds and different views, which would make them complete enemies. Yet, these two understand why the other is so successful and admires each other for different reasons. O’Reilly admires Stewart because he does not just sit behind his Comedy Central desk and make fun and judge from afar. He will go anywhere and defend what he said or believes (Crossfire and Tucker Carlson learned that the hard way when his appearance helped hammer the nail in the coffin of its cancellation). Stewart seems to respect O’Reilly because of his success and same attitude. I do not know either of these two men but I am pretty sure that any type of respect they have do not go to many other people with different viewpoints. O’Reilly does not have respect for Colbert or Keith Olberman, and Stewart does not have respect for people like Beck and Sean Hannity. It is the respect factor that makes this a good debate and fun to watch in my opinion. You can check it out for yourself here.

-Frank Mahoney

The death of Ryan Dunn

2011-06-21T20:56:00.006-04:00

The history of those involved in Jackass is one of self-harm and maiming. Danger was always close by to the Jackass crew, yet for so long they seemed to be protected by something divine and unexplainable. Johnny Knoxville himself only laughs his infectious, characteristic laugh every time something almost takes his life. As kids we grew up watching grown men injure themselves for our entertainment. And, if you asked thirteen year old me watching Jackass late at night on MTV which member would be the first to meet their end, Ryan Dunn would be the last on my list.

R.I.P. Random Hero

Dunn seemed the most sensible one in the group. He seemed genuinely affable and cool to hang out with. In short, he seemed pretty bro-tastic. He was my favorite member of Jackass. He didn't put himself at the forefront of the show like Knoxville of Bam Margera and he wasn't an annoying attention whore like Steve-O. He was just fun to watch. And, not counting Knoxville or Margera (arguably Margera), Dunn was the most successful outside Jackass. He had his own MTV with Homewrecker (only lasted a season but still, it was better received than Dr. Steve-O), guest starred in an episode of Law & Order and he had two projects coming out in 2011. G4's Proving Ground and a movie called Booted. Proving Ground has since been put on hold after Dunn's death.

I keep forgetting that director Spike Jonze technically got his start with Jackass.

Frankly, I'm shocked at the amount of attention Dunn's death is getting by the media. But with the 11 o'clock news a hold of it, it will mostly be played as a warning against drunk driving than anything else. Even Roger Ebert has chimed in on the accident. But the accident shouldn't be made into a drunk driving PSA. The people chiming in didn't grow up watching Jackass. While it is dumb to drink and drive, the point is that this was a man who made a living almost dying for our entertainment. And he did entertain us. Here now is a reprint of a column I wrote about Jackass 3-D when it came out.

They even have a video game.

“Hi, I’m Johnny Knoxville. Welcome to Jackass.”

Thus began the Jackass phenomenon. These immortal words ushered in a whole new world of painful opportunities. The MTV show that redefined the phrase “Don’t try this at home” is celebrating its tenth anniversary with a new film, Jackass 3-D.

The Jackass crew has been a part of growing up for many people of this generation. Their wild antics have entertained impressionable audiences for years. Some stunts were violent, some disgusting and others just plain fun to watch. In a world where you can’t count on much, it’s nice to depend on Jackass for its patented mindless fun. No matter how bad a mood someone is in, seeing a person get hit below the belt in creative ways is always pleasant to watch.

Ever since the first Jackass movie, the skits have been getting more extreme. Without having to worry about offending television audiences, Knoxville and his associates have the freedom to film new and creative ways of hurting themselves. The first film is relatively tame compared to the sequel. While the first Jackass film contained destruction and toy-car tomfoolery, the second one seemed downright suicidal.

Now that a third film is coming out this week with the now-overused 3-D gimmick, the antics can only be more insane. Each film, television show and project has gone further than the last. It will be safe to assume that the filmmakers will make the most out of the special effects and do things in 3-D that have never been seen before (and probably shouldn’t be seen at all).

While some may have been misguided enough to replicate some of the activities from Jackass, even a single iota of survival instinct should have prevented that. In the films, thankfully, the scenarios become more elaborate and less easy to replicate. Watching those idiots on the big screen should make for an enjoyable movie experience. The whole audience can laugh and groan together, uniting the packed theater in the spectacle that is Jackass.

Jackass is not high art. There is no artistic merit or deeper meaning. What the series stands for is the fun in stupidity. By performing these stunts, the crass entertain us and put their lives and souls on the line so viewers don’t have to try it at home.

Watching a semi-professional getting hurt is a lot better than peer-pressuring some kid from the neighborhood to try out homemade rocket skates. In a way, they are doing us a favor. They are angels of stupidity and self-inflicted harm.

Jackass 3-D premieres in theaters Oct. 15.

Father's Day special: The best fathers in film

2011-06-19T13:25:00.018-04:00

Fathers have it hard in Hollywood. So many films not only include but hinge upon daddy-issues (like every movie Spielberg has made). Even the coolest dads in film usually start out as dicks. They don't truly redeem themselves until the third act. Just look at Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (my personal favorite of the trilogy). Sean Connery is enjoyable to watch as Henry Sr., Indy's absentee father. Yes, they bonded during their crusade for the Holy Grail, but before that their relationship was defined by thirty years of horrible parenting. Fathers in movies are either absent, neglectful or trying to force you to kill a man with an ax

I can't be the only person that remembers the movie Frailty.

In honor of Father's Day, I have assembled the top five fathers in film. I'm sure I'm forgetting a few in there, but for now this list will do.

5. Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) in Taken

Liam Neeson takes this spot through sheer badassery. Not only does he save his daughter from being trapped in a sex ring, but he also sets her up to meet her favorite pop star. Neeson's character may not be the greatest of fathers, but it's hard not to see a one-man war against France as a dedication of his love. Plus did I mention Neeson is awesome is everything he's in?

4. Daddy Warbucks (Albert Finney and Victor Garber) in Annie

Though he is not Annie's real father, Oliver "Daddy" Warbucks proves that even red-heads need love. And that is a valuable lesson to take home with you. The gruff millionaire plucks the orphan out of the drudgery of New York's worst orphanage and finally gives her what she's dreamed of all her life: family. Family and lots of money during the depression. While everyone else was in line for bread she was kicking it with FDR (figuratively kicking it of course, damn polio).

Why does nobody have eyes?

3. Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman) in Kramer vs. Kramer

In the beginning of the movie, Ted Kramer wasn't the best husband or dad in the world. Kramer belonged to the archetype of "workaholic dad" that so many movies abuse for drama. After his wife leaves him, Kramer is forced to finally learn to be a dad. Kramer vs. Kramer could of easily been a pedestrian film about parenthood. But thanks to Dustin Hoffman's vulnerability in the role, the whole film is elevated. And, although I previously decried absentee fathers in my intro, Kramer learned how to be a real dad for his son before it was too late. And though I will forever be angry at this film for beating out Apocalypse Now and Being There at the Oscars, it's still a really good film.

2. Furious Styles (Laurence Fishburne) in Boyz n the Hood

Boyz n the Hood will always be one of my favorites. It's a perfect coming of age film about three teenagers who name South Central home. And, out of any coming of age flick, Boyz n the Hood is the one that stresses the importance of being a father more than any other. In the end, Tre is the only one to escape the neighborhood violence. This is in no small part thanks to his father raising him. Furious Styles not only raises Tre but shows him how to be a man. Laurence Fishburne plays the role exceptionally well, truly proving that any fool can be a father but it takes a man to be a dad. Furious is the Atticus Finch of the hood. Speaking of which...

1. Atticus Finch (Gregory Peck) in To Kill a Mockingbird

Gregory Peck may be seen as the poor man's Cary Grant, but Peck has one thing that Grant never won: an Oscar. Not just an Oscar, but an Oscar for one of the greatest characters in, not just film or literature, but history. Atticus Finch is the man that all men should model their lives after. He's gentle, kind, fair and honorable. A widower, Finch is left to raise his two kids on his own. But even with the loss of his wife and the case of his life, Atticus still finds the time to be a wonderful father to Scout and Jem. He never condescends to his children nor does he miss an opportunity to impress upon them how to be a human being. He's a hero to lawyers everywhere, AFI's greatest hero in American film and my choice for best father in film. While I may have had some trouble thinking of the other four, this choice was just too easy.

Happy Father's Day

And apologies to Henry Jones, Sr.

All time top five: Movies

2011-06-17T21:41:00.012-04:00

I've always been a big John Cusack fan. I identify with his persona. Not just in paleness either but even general disposition. And, as much as I hate to admit, Cusack movies have influenced my development a bit. Better Off Dead is the reason why I name the Camaro my dream car. Maybe part of me hopes that it will help me win the love of a French foreign exchange student or finally beat those Asian brothers that always try and race me at the intersection. The fact remains that I owe part of my personality to what I stole from Cusack. Cusack is the reason why I have ever fooled any girl into dating a schmuck such as myself. Anyway, it is because of High Fidelity that I've gotten into the habit of making everything into Top Five listings. It's just simple and easy to organize. While my music Top Five is a bit more fluid (since I'm not as secure in my musical taste), my film Top Five is rock solid. So, for lack of a better topic for tonight, here is my all time, Top Five list of films. Please watch every one of them. For the sake of drama I'll list them in reverse order.

5. Trainspotting (1996)

This poster is currently hanging in my room.

The fifth spot has always been one of internal debate. All the other listings are set in stone, but the fifth spot has shifted over the years. When I made the listing, I stuck Wristcutters: A Love Story in there. I enjoyed the film's message and production. I also enjoyed watching Shannyn Sossamon. Wristcutters' is a charming film. It's a feel-good film about suicide. And I don't think any movie has made me smile coming out of it as much as Wristcutters did. Then I saw 500 Days of Summer and fell in love with it. To me it is one of the top cinematic displays of love. It doesn't hurt that I am fans of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel either. But after further soul searching, I wasn't happy with 500 Days on the list either. It was a film perfect for me when I watched it but I needed to pick a movie with more staying power in my life. Then I looked up on my wall and saw Ewan McGregor staring down at me.

Trainspotting is the kind of film that changes cinema. People argue that Tarantino brought style back to movies in the 90s, but Danny Boyle made it look much more effortless. And though I have no desire to even think about heroin, I find this story of Scottish heroin addicts addicting (see what I did there?). My brother lambasted the film for not having much of a plot, but that's where I found it refreshing. It does more than tell a story or give you a moral to take home, it shows you into the lives of some major screw-ups. I can pop the DVD in anytime I want and still be entertained. Also the book was enjoyable too. As I was reading it I liked to hand the book to my friends at the lunch table and see if they could look past the dialect. It's a charming story of characteristically uncharming people.

4. The Graduate (1967)

Mr. Feeney playing Ben's father still creeps up on me every time I watch.

It's almost cliche to say that The Graduate is someone's favorite movie. It's comparable to naming Catcher in the Rye your favorite book (or, more recently, cliche to hate Catcher). But The Graduate really does sum up every person that's ever felt lost in life. In at least one point of our lives we feel as Ben does. And though we don't have as nice a car as Ben, we feel his pain. Watching him become a man, not because he nabbed a cougar, but because he truly learned how to be an adult, empowers all of us to grow up. The generational divide is also perfectly illustrated in this classic. It's almost sad that the generation that grew up with Ben as a hero fail to realize that they are the Mr. and Mrs. of the world now. But even though it's more than 40 years old, it still speaks to every person that's watched it. That and the Simon and Garfunkel soundtrack helps.

3. Network (1976)

Such a good flick.

Network is considered to have one of the greatest scripts in cinema, and rightfully so. Paddy Chayefsky's words explode out of the screen with the fury of Mohammed Ali's jabs. The story of a news anchor's nervous breakdown could of been easily mishandled, resulting in a tepid, toothless movie. Network is pure satire yet one can't help but be drawn into the character drama. Instead of an easily forgettable farce about a fledgling network station, we ended up with a prophetic view of media and the fourth estate. Network makes one both hypnotized by the dialog and acting and horrified by the message. A message that becomes more relevant with each passing business quarter. The film is expertly handled by the recently deceased Sidney Lumet. Yes, I am a bit biased because I am a wannabe journalist, but Network is undeniably a memorizing film. And to be that engrossing yet only be dialogue-driven is a feat.

2. Brazil (1985)

It's only a coincidence that four of my top five represent a different decade.

Brazil isn't a film so much as it is an experience. When my local video rental store closed down, unable to compete with Blockbuster (it is dramatic irony that Blockbuster is now bust), I picked up a armful of cheap cassettes to add to my collection. The beauty of cassettes were how they forced you to watch trailers before the feature. That and the whirl of the turbo-rewinder were my favorite memories of the now dead format. It is because of these trailers that I learned about Brazil. Because of my childhood obsession with time travel, I decided to buy 12 Monkeys (I was aware of Terry Gilliam's work and was already a fan). The trailer for Brazil came on before the feature and I was amazed by it. I rewound it three times before I decided enough was enough.

Brazil is distinctly Gilliam in both style and substance. The battle between reality and imagination is always interesting. And as a young Orwell fan, the 1984-like setting was inspired. Brazil even out Orwelled the previous year's adaption of 1984. However, just like all other Gilliam films, Brazil is uneven and unwieldy. But, to me, that only gives it charm. And the story is a perfect blend of paranoia and liberation.

1. The Third Man (1949)

I've spoken about this poster before.

Ten years from now, I may look at my Top Five in disgust. As we grow older our taste changes. Whether our taste becomes more refined or not is a matter of debate. But even if I gut my list completely, The Third Man will always be the pinnacle of cinema to me. Finding one's soul mate in this life is tough, but I honestly think I found my cinematic soul mate in Third Man. It's a film about a man who travels to post-war Vienna to see his best friend, only to find that the man died shortly before his arrival.

To call Carol Reed's masterpiece a noir film is not doing Third Man justice. In actuality, it's quite funny. Not only is it funny but it's also suspenseful, ponderous, whimsical and depressing. Just like Network, Third Man was ahead of its time. One can't watch the film without being amazed at how modern it is. And not just because of its pioneering camera angles, but also with its story about loyalty and morality. And it doesn't hurt that the film hinges on Orson Welles during his most charming years. Free from having to direct, Welles is almost weightless as the endlessly endearing Harry Lime. Welles makes his character both lovable and despicable. Not just Welles, but every cast member and facade of this under-appreciated masterpiece shines brightly as each year goes by. Third Man is my favorite movie of all time, and I will fight anyone that doesn't agree with its perfection.

The state of comics and DC's reboot

2011-06-10T22:09:00.008-04:00

I was going to write this post earlier today but I got sidetracked by sewing a button (sewing is cool). The actual button sewing didn't take long at all. It was threading the needle that was a pain in the ass. After finally sewing the button back onto my work pants I went sew-crazy and fixed all the holes in my jean pockets. For some reason, my pants all have holes in the left pocket. Either my Levi's unionized and are on strike for never washing them or my constant ipod carrying took a toll on structural integrity of the fabric. Either way I don't care, because you don't have to wash jeans every time you wear them. That's the beauty and fun of the coarse, blue fabric.

You're trousers. You have no say in what I carry in my pockets.

So, about the topic at hand. DC Comics announced a line-wide renumbering of 52 of its comic books. This news has been met with cynicism and anger by comic reading fans. You see, comic book fans are jaded individuals. With modern cinema so dependent on comic book panels for substance, you would think that this would be a reawakening in the comic book world. A renaissance (I feel like I use that word too much on here) in creativity and popularity. Instead, comic books are only dumbing themselves down for the wider market. By doing this they are alienating their loyal fans that have stuck with the comics through every superhero death and badly written character arc. Instead of comics affecting their cinematic interpretations, they are instead being affected by them. The comic book movie tail is wagging the comic book industry dog.

Picture unrelated.

DC Comics, fearing convoluted continuity and intimidating issue numbering (Action Comics just recently passed 900 issues), is restarting itself. Not just numbering, but many plot points are even being changed. Some of the most exciting storytelling in comics (namely Dick Grayson becoming Batman) is being rewritten for no good reason. To me, this seems pretty uncharacteristic of DC. Out of the Big Two, DC always seemed to show more reverence for its characters. Marvel heroes are interesting characters, but DC heroes are neo-gods. Unlike Marvel, DC never started issues with little summaries of the story so far. No, the average comic reader had to work to understand a DC story. And that lent pride to the line. A pride that Marvel couldn't touch. Marvel may have the larger market share but DC had more class.

I feel like DC characters are taller than Marvel ones.

Attracting new readers is important, especially the weakening comic book industry. But the current pop culture climate should be a perfect storm for readership. Is restarting half of the industry's characters really going to attract anyone that hasn't been reading already? Those interested will find the back stories of issues. Hell, ten minutes on Wikipedia is all someone needs to know what's going on in X-Men right now (and X-Men must have the most confusing story out of everybody). Instead of attracting it will only alienate readers. It's true, the numbers are just arbitrary. But to actually change the story is insulting.

Cancelling Secret Six is also insulting.

Comic books are ridiculous. Fans know this more than anyone else. But there is certain charm in the inherent ridiculousness. If somebody can't get a handle on that then they shouldn't start reading comics. Both companies have their own kind of ridiculousness, but DC should be better than this. When Marvel tried to attract readers with simplified continuity, they were smart enough to start a whole new line (the Ultimate Marvel experiment). If DC were smart they should of done that and left their core books alone. Instead they went and messed with the whole scene. Yes, Superman and Wonder Women were in desperate need of help, but Green Lantern and Batman were telling the best stories in years. Now, it is all for naught.

The jury is still out on Ultimate Marvel's impact.

Ever since Batman Begins the word reboot has been thrown around aimlessly. What was once referred to as remakes are now being reclassified. But really it's just semantics. And it sounds like a gift for artists. If a previous attempt has failed, then just redo it and call it a reboot. The entertainment world now has it's own word for a mulligan. But, while some reboots work, it is also breeding laziness. And comic books, which have always been like soap operas in tights, should not fall prey to this reboot-madness. You can always start a new series or create another dimension in the multiverse. While just as lazy, that route at least shows respect to the characters that have been growing for decades.

Some characters have literally grown up in that time.

But what does it really matter? Comic books are know for their cyclical nature and changes rarely stay the same. Superheros come back from the dead and stories are revised, but never to such a degree as what DC is attempting. Even previous reboots (such as the Zero Hour event in the 90s and Crisis on Infinite Earths) have never seemed this brazen. In the end, DC just wants to sell more comics, and what's a bigger seller than a first issue?

Guest Blog: Why the Stanley Cup is the best trophy in the world

2011-06-09T22:09:00.011-04:00

I asked for bloggers and now I have to own up to it. At least once a week I'll try and post a guest blog on top of my two. This week's blog comes from my dear brother Shaun. As I once stated, he has always been an ardent hockey fan. Ever since elementary school when he had his puffy Flyers winter jacket, he has been a hockey fanatic. So, in honor of the hockey playoffs, here are his thoughts on the greatest trophy in sports. Any comments I make are in italics.

-Don Woods

For those of you who don’t know me, I am Donny’s awesome brother Shaun. For those of you who do know me, what’s good? I am here to talk to you about a subject that is near and dear to my heart. Hockey has been an important part of my life for as long as I can remember, going all the way back to Super Nintendo’s Blades of Steel. I could go on forever about my love, but I decided to do this blog post on one hockey topic in particular: the Stanley Cup. In my opinion, the Stanley Cup is, by far, the greatest single trophy in all of sports. The Stanley Cup is one of the few things in the world that make grown men cry. If you don’t agree with me (I honestly don’t know how it’s possible that you don’t), I will give you reasons why I feel it is. And please, excuse the rambling.

The road to the Stanley Cup

Hockey is, arguably, the most grueling season in sports. The NHL training camp starts in September and the playoffs end in June. An 82 game regular season is tough enough, but once you make it to the playoffs you still have to play for another 2 months of even more demanding hockey then that of the regular season. This makes a single season of hockey one of the most physically demanding sports in the world, which alone makes Lord Stanley's cup one of the hardest trophies to win.

Ray Bourque waited 22 seasons before he lifted the Cup.

History

What do the MLB, NBA and NFL trophies all have in common? They make a new one every year. Notice something missing from that list? Oh yea, the NHL. That’s because there is only one. trophy ONE. The Stanley Cup has been around since 1892 (And no, that’s not a typo). And since then, hockey has been passing around the same single trophy for over 100 years. I don’t really need to go any further than that. Every other professional sports trophy in the US is made annually by Tiffany & Company. If you are looking for any single reason why the Stanley Cup is better than every other trophy, this is it.

Do you want a trophy from a lame baseball commissioner or
Lord freakin' Stanley, Earl of Derby?

Tradition

If you took a poll of the greatest thing about winning the Stanley Cup I guarantee almost every player will tell you the same thing; getting your name engraved on it. The Stanley Cup is unique in that it is the only trophy that engraves the names of every single player on the championship team. Let’s be real, how awesome is that? The Stanley Cup has 5 rings on it each holding 13 previous championship teams and all of the players, which for the lazy or dumb means that you can read the names of every player that won the Stanley Cup all the way back to the 1940s. One look at the present Stanley Cup and you can find the names of some of the greatest players to ever play the game, and that is a chilling experience I am sure.

Sometimes there are mistakes, like when Eric Staal found an extra "a" engraved in his name.

Once you win the Stanley Cup, you get one day to do whatever you please with it. There have been hundreds of crazy stories that have happened with a player's day with the Cup, but I won’t get sidetracked by it. So if you are interested I definitely suggest you look them up. Another unwritten tradition for players is that they can never touch the Stanley Cup without winning it. The Stanley Cup must be earned. Some players will not go near the Stanley Cup for fear of jinxing yourself (This is true for fans as well, myself included. I'd refuse to go anywhere near the Stanley Cup until the Flyers win it). On a smaller scale, teams have made it a point to never touch the conference championship trophies, with the thought process being that they are playing for the Stanley Cup and all other trophies are meaningless (I wholeheartedly agree and I hate seeing divison/conference/etc memorabilia. You play for the championship, that’s the only thing that should be celebrated).

Western conference trophy looks like something you win for a derby, not a hockey game.

Size (Apparently it does matter)

The Stanley Cup is a very large trophy. It is 3 feet tall and weighs 35 pounds. This is another of the points I use mainly when arguing why the Stanley Cup is the best. When you win a championship, something you’ve been working your whole life for; do you want to pick up a little ass trophy with one hand? That’s not rewarding at all. Kids everywhere dream of one day hoisting the Stanley Cup (I still hope to one day), there is no better feeling in the world I am sure. And it's no fun hoisting up a baby trophy.

Beautiful.

-Shaun Woods

Top five most underrated films since 2000

2011-06-06T17:50:00.009-04:00

UPDATE: I feel like 2001's Ghost World belongs on this list somewhere but I can't decide what to bump off. So let's just count Ghost World as an unofficial number six.

UPDATE OF AN UPDATE: I forgot about Wonder Boys from 2000, that should be on here too. This list is harder than I thought.

Each year, some films just get lost in the shuffle. Whether it's because it was overshadowed by bigger projects, misunderstood or, frankly, just not watched, some films never really get the credit they deserve. In order to limit myself, I decided to look at the past 10 years and decide which movies never had a chance. These are all masterpieces in their own right, yet somehow they were left behind. None of these films really won awards, some were not even nominated for any. Yet, as some films fade away and are forgotten, I hope these five movies have some sort of staying power. In that respect, maybe they'll finally get the respect they deserve. I tried to keep the list diverse in its selection. I also avoided movies with cult followings because, cult followings validate it a little. I want to find movies that are in more need of appreciation.

5. 25th Hour (2002)

Set during a drug dealer's last day before being sent to prison, 25th Hour is a simple yet effective reflection on one man's life gone wrong and his relationships with those closest to him. Edward Norton gives a bombastic performance as Monty Brogan, the drug dealer on his way to Otisville. Although it is a personal and simple tale, Spike Lee milks every scene and gimmick for all it's worth. The result is both astounding and intense. Every actor in the film gives the performance of their lives, all culminating in a heartbreaking ending. And no scene could rival Norton's "Fuck You" monologue, a tirade of post-9/11 anger and Monty's own regret. As a Lee fan, I can honestly say that this could be his best film (behind Do the Right Thing of course).

4. Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

Have faith in Ridley Scott. The man who brought us Alien, Blade Runner, Black Hawk Down and Gladiator (a new classic if there ever was one), did it again with Kingdom of Heaven. A parable of modern Middle East relations, Kingdom of Heaven tells the story of a knight and his defense of Jerusalem during the crusades. Orlando Bloom gives a valiant effort as the main character, but supporting cast, such as Liam Neeson (amazingly badass), Jeremy Irons (awesome voice), Edward Norton (here he is again) and Brendan Gleeson (always enjoyable to watch), steal the show. Norton especially is memorizing as the dying leader of Jerusalem. Even through a mask he gives a powerful performance. The problem with this film was the studios. Looking for another success like Gladiator, the film was cut up and advertised poorly. Thankfully, the director's cut DVD restored the film to its amazing glory.

3. Road to Perdition (2002)

It's the ultimate father and son tale. Road to Perdition could be described as a depression-era retelling of Lone Wolf and Cub. Tom Hanks, at his most badass, goes across country robbing banks with his son and running from the mob that betrayed him and killed his family. Road to Perdition was the only film on this list to win an Oscar, for cinematography. And it deserves it, all thanks to Conrad Hall. The movie becomes a living Hopper painting. Cinematography, however, would be moot if there wasn't unbelievable actors to shoot. Hanks, Paul Newman, Jude Law (in his most un-Jude-Law performance), Daniel Craig and Stanley Tucci are brilliantly directed by Sam Mendes. However, the film was lost in the shuffle of a busy year. With Gangs of New York, Catch Me If You Can, The Pianist, The Hours, Adaptation. and the overrated Chicago all out the same year, it never really had a chance.

2. Unbreakable (2000)

Superhero movies, nowadays, are dime a dozen. The genre has already blown up, been reinvented and become a joke. Few of those superhero stories, however, are as methodological as Unbreakable. It's not just a story of a man learning he is a superhero, it's a story for every person in an existential crisis. It's about finding meaning in your own world. And it does all of this with a magnificent score by James Newton Howard (a score that I would say is the most underrated, if it wasn't for my next pick). The film both celebrates the comic book hero and deconstructs it in one fell swoop. Samuel L. Jackson also gives his most subdued performance as the purple-wearing mentor to Bruce Willis. The problem with Unbreakable was, it was M. Night Shyamalan's first film after The Sixth Sense. And, like most sophomore attempts, it was seen as disappointing. On the other hand, I see it as Shyamalan's masterpiece. Even more so than Sixth Sense. And, to me, it shows the quality that Shyamalan has lost in his most recent years.

1. Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)

With a run time that seems as unnecessarily long as its name, Assassination of Jesse James represents, to me, pure cinema. It's a story that is told perfectly by director Andrew Dominik. It's a film so gorgeous that you can pause it at anytime and be amazed at the cinematography (the train robbery scene is especially memorable). Though it clock in at almost three hours, the film tells an important story. It's about two men who find their own legends intertwining. The story deconstructs, not only westerns of the legend of Jesse James, but also the very idea of legends themselves. It does not judge who was right or wrong, but instead gives us a film to watch and marvel at. The film is a perfect mix of directing, cinematography, acting and music. Casey Affleck shows why he is a much better actor that his brother (his brother has grown into a fine director though). The whole cast gets a quiet moment for each character to shine. And Nick Cave and Warren Ellis, who made an amazing soundtrack to The Proposition, tops themselves with the beautiful yet subtle Jesse James soundtrack. The music and the movie is haunting. And after watching it, you wonder why it took two years for it to be released.

Guest Blog: Today’s Music and Its Effect On My Generation

2011-06-02T20:37:00.012-04:00

I asked for bloggers and now I have to own up to it. At least once a week I'll try and post a guest blog on top of my two. This week's blog comes from Darren, a buddy of mine that we affectionately call D-Bear. Any comments I make are in italics.

-Don Woods

I am not a music person. I don’t write songs or play an instrument. I couldn’t tell you anything about notes or pitch or anything technical like that, but what I do know about music is that the ear raping performed by today’s biggest artists is out of control. Is the noise on the radio today really called music? Music- the tones or sounds employed, occurring in single line (melody) or multiple lines (harmony) and sounded or to besounded by one or more voices or instruments, or both.

Now I ask you, when was the last time you heard an instrument or autotune-free voice on the radio?

Or they don't need anything to be just plain horrible.

At this time, you’re probably expecting me to promote my personal favorite genre of music. And I would except for the fact that I like any music, anything other than the ear rape is fine with me. I'll take any genre with some type of instrument or vocalist who does more than talk. In order for this new style to be popular, there must be something special about it. So, if it’s not about talking in an annoying voice over computer-generated beats that makes these artists unique, maybe it’s the lyrics.

You know when you’re writing paper (or a blog...) and you just bullshit the whole thing by saying the same thing fifty different ways? Modern lyrics are kind of like that, but instead of “Leonardo da Vinci was a renaissance man” it’s “I like to have sex with attractive women and get free money for doing it.” If you think Lil Wayne is clever you would probably shit bricks after hearing Bo Burnham.

Haters call me gay, but that aint hatin
Cause I'm not homophobic, my morals are straight and
If I'm in the closet then you are below me
Takin the b-a-t out of basement, homey

I wish music could stop at music, but it doesn’t. Taste has a way of spilling into every aspect of our lives. These atrocities, being the most popular now, spawn a generation of stupidity unlike any other. Maybe I’m seeing connections that aren’t there but it seems like every terrible music video posted on Facebook is accompanied by an even worse message full of useless symbols and pointless acronyms.

&&##<3 smdh <3##&&

The dumbness continues into TV, where shows on MTV and Vh1 further dull down any signs of intelligence in our youth (To be fair, Vh1 has always been more of an older person's channel. It's the elephant graveyard where music goes to die). All around you are kids saying they have swag, which is apparently attained by giving up all knowledge of anything important in exchange for copious amounts of clothing (I love the word copious). I’m embarrassed to be in a generation with such an idiotic group of people.

I have hope that this is just a passing phase and that one day it will all just be a sickening memory, but I’m not holding my breath. For now I’m just going to go on listening to real music, speaking like an intelligent life form and watching the Discovery Channel.

Planet Earth all day.

If this actually gets posted, big thanks to D. Woods for providing me with an outlet to express my ideas.

-Darren Pascavage

Ferris Bueller's 25th anniversary, aka I heart Cameron Frye

2011-06-01T18:26:00.012-04:00

Next week, June 11 to be exact, marks the 25th anniversary of Ferris Bueller's Day Off. While Matthew Broderick may not seem nearly as cool as he use to be, his character Ferris Bueller defined cool in the 80s. The movie's director, John Hughes, basically created pop culture in the 80s. His Brat Pack films helped define adolescence for a whole generation. While the majority of his movies were set in high school, there were no real discernible popular kids in his Illinois high schools. All of Hughes' children (that's the best way to describe all of his characters) were full of pathos. It's what drew teenagers to his movies. His characters were real people we could all identify with. Although his movies were fun, what made them endearing was how each generation related with the brain, athlete, basket case, princess or criminal. In that respect, Bueller himself was an outlier. Bueller is, arguably, the only carefree character in Hughes' whole repertoire. Ferris is none of those things. And it is because of this that Bueller is not entirely relatable.

Leisure does, in fact, rule.

Bueller's upper-middle class existence through life can hardly be called a struggle. The movie's whole thesis is the importance of just learning to relax and enjoy life. The tagline, the premise and every quote that finds its way to high school yearbooks, it all leads up to one important moral, "Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it."

Wise words from a wise man...

We can listen to Ferris, but honestly, we could never learn from him. He is already knee deep in his own philosophy. The man we see in the beginning of the movie and the end is the same smirking bastard throughout. He does not learn anything. He does not grow as a person. But then again that's not the point. Ferris is the rock that the whole movie relies on, but in the end the movie that bears his name is not really his movie. The secret to the movie is that, in actuality, it's Cameron's story.

Cameron is the third-wheel in the Gordie Howe jersey.

Cameron Frye is the true heart of the movie. The problem is that nobody really wants to watch a movie starring his neurotic self. But in the end, it's Cameron who grows as a person. The emotional and character arc is solely Cameron. Hell, the Ferrari goes through more of a development than most of the cast. Ferris is the cool friend we all want to be, but Cameron is the mess we all find ourselves as. And that is why Cameron is one of the characters in cinema that I hold dearest to my heart.

I even bought that t-shirt online.

Like Cameron, I too am so tight that if you stuck a lump of coal up my ass, in two weeks you'd have a diamond. He is the Ferris' philosophy at work. Cameron is the proof that a day of having fun in Chicago and a nervous breakdown can lead to enlightenment. The audience's heart goes out to Cameron throughout the whole movie as he learns to let go and be carefree. Only Alan Ruck's character can make staring at a Georges Seurat painting so vulnerable. Cameron may not get the very hot Sloane on his arm, but in the end he does develop as an individual. We never see what happens after his day off or the fallout from wrecking the Ferrari, but in the end we don't need to. Because that look on his face after it plunges out the window is all we need to know he'll be alright. And that is why I identify more with him than Ferris.

Although the person I resemble the most is drug-addled Charlie Sheen.

Recent watchers of the movie have even rebelled against the Ferris ideal. In today's cynical times, many have seen Ferris only as an entitled, spoiled, sociopath. Some people nowadays have taken Jeanie's point of view, yet did not learn from her subplot. This revisionist history found on blogs and IMDb message boards paints Ferris as nothing more than Charles Manson in a leopard-skin vest. Instead of wanting to be as carefree as everyone's favorite slacker, many have vilified him. People have even taken to seeing Ed Rooney, the hapless dean of students, as an anti-hero. While I do hoist Cameron as the hero of the film, Rooney is nothing more than a prick.

Jeffrey Jones would later be a convicted sex offender.

If Ferris Bueller was a real person he would now be 25 years older than we see him in the movie. Being 25 years older, who knows what he would be doing now or if his leisurely lifestyle continued into his middle-aged life. Maybe it's better we never know how his life works out. All we need is a snapshot of that one day in Chicago. For all of our sakes, we need to believe that we can stop and enjoy life. Because, while we all may want to be like Ferris, most of us are like Cameron. And like Cameron, hopefully we can all let go of our problems and learn to relax.

Cameron Frye, you're my hero.