Concert: Weird Al Yankovic, September 20th, 2007, Beacon Theater, NYC

Weird al

I would have to say that, pound for pound, Weird Al Yankovic gives the best concert performance I have ever seen. I have seen him five or six times prior to last Thursday, and he has never disappointed.

Last week, before the show, there was a man outside the venue with a petition to get Al nominated to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I support this effort 110%. The two main qualifications to get into the Hall is that you have to be innovative and influential. You might say Al is anything but innovative. After all, he is a parody artist, meaning he rewrites other artists songs. Besides, there have been parodist before him, namely Allan Sherman and Stan Freberg.

But if you consider his video parodies, he is innovative. He was the first to parody that medium. And try to make a song parody that works. It's not as easy as all makes it look.

As for influential, Al has inspired numerous drive-time DJ's to make crappy song parodies. That might count against him. But if you look at it another way, look at how many artists over the years have said the knew they made it when Al parodied them. There was a lot and many future Hall of Famers are on the list.

This is the first time I've seen Al perform in NYC since I've lived here. Usually, he goes to places like Westbury and other towns. I guess the success of Straight Out of Lynwood means that he's back in the big time.

He was good as always. It seemed that there was much more costume changes than when I saw him in years past. Not that that's a bad thing, because it mean more AL TV skits.

There was a lot of inside jokes for fans, such as the "Atlantic Records Sucks" T-shirt he wore during "You're Pitiful". A highlight for me was when 12 Stormtroopers and a Darth Vader came out when Al did "The Saga Begins". You haven't lived until you've seen Darth bop along to a Don McLean parody.

So, if you're an Al fan and haven't seen him live yet, you must see him. And if you just like seeing an awesome live show, you should see him.   

New Guiding Lines column up.

There is a new Guiding Lines column up at Broken Frontier. This week, I cover Justice League of America #13, Wonder Woman Annual #1, Bart Simpsons' Treehouse of Horror #13, Batman #669, Avengers: The Initiative #6, and Uncle Sam and The Freedom Fighters #1. Check it out!

Reason for the Radio silence.

Not that anyone cares, but I haven't been blogging that often lately. Here is why:

• I went to see a concert
• I had to clean for a houseguest.
• I had other writing to do.

But now I'm back and this should be a heavy posting day. You are forewarned.

Bill

Tempest in a Teacup: CT Teacher gives out "pornographic" comic as an assignment.

As the Beat reports here and here, from this news article and this follow-up, a male Guilford CT High School teacher has resigned after assigning a copy of Eightball #22 to a 13 year-old female student. Of course, I had to comment on it.

First off, I have to say that in this case and in the Gordon Lee case, if you are giving comics that feature nudity to children, you are just asking for trouble. I mean, really. Think before doing something as daft as that.

That being said, the "victim" in this case is 13 years old! I was buying and reading Watchmen when I was 13! In the grand scheme of things, that was more pornographic than that issue of Eightball, which was reworked into the Ice Haven hardcover. And I only turned out mildly perverted.

The original article illustrates the fantasyland view most parents have about their kids. They are either in denial about or have forgotten how they were like when they were young and prefer to think of their children as pure, innocent, simple, untouched-by-the-world creatures who stay that way until they turn 18, when, magically, maturity rushes at them all at once and they become fully functioning adults overnight.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. As much as they think they are protecting them, the real world creeps in earlier that the realize. And "pornographic" comics aren't the main culprit. Try TV, movies, magazines, music videos, their friends and just the news in general. I'd argue that almost everything these kids come in contact through the above media is more explicit than that issue of Eightball.  I mean, what is worse? Seeing a drawing of a female breast or hearing Marg Helgenberger talking about her sex life, or lack thereof, on CSI?

And the parents quoted in the article take overreacting to ludicrous levels. "It's pornography," one says. "If that was my daughter that came home and showed this to me I honestly believe my husband would hurt the man," says another. Really? Is that a fact? Good tactic. Surely seeing daddy lacing a beating on her teacher would counter act the negative effect seeing a cartoon booby would have on the child's psyche.

I have read the book, but for those of you who have not, Journalista! , the blog of Eightball publisher Fantagraphics, has reprinted the most offensive panels from the issue. Those of you clicking the above link expecting to find hot, hardcore sex will be extremely disappointed. I'd wager to say that if those panels were a scene in a movie, that movie would only garner a PG-13 rating. Meaning the student in question could pay her money and see it with out any adult supervision at all.

But, of course, these are comics were talking about. There's an entirely different standard for comics than there is for movies. After all, didn't you know, comics are for kids! These perverts are using a child's medium to try and scar these pure and innocent children just so they can get their rocks off! Those nasty buggers!!!!

We are over 50 years removed from Wertham's Seduction of the Innocent and witchhunt it spawned but the climate of what caused it has not changed all that much. This incident, and the reaction to it, is proof of that.

 

 

 

Hitman article up.

Hey! Want to know more about the DC series Hitman? Well, you're in luck. I wrote an article about it for Broken Frontier and you can read that article here.

New Guiding Lines column up.

A new Guiding Lines column has been posted today. In it, I cover The Umbrella Academy: Apocalypse Suite #1, Marvel Comics Presents #1, Green Arrow/Black Canary Wedding Special #1, Jack Kirby's Bounty Hunters #6, Criminal Macabre: My Demon Baby #1, and Countdown to Mystery #1. Check it out!

QotD: The Fall TV Season

What shows are you looking forward to in the new fall TV season?

Heroes - Season One

It would have to be Heroes.I finally got through the last season last night and, while flawed, it is the best representation of superheroes I have seen in a long time.  

This Week's Theatrical Releases

1. The Brave One (2,755 Theaters, Rated R): The Director? Neil Jordan (Mona Lisa, Crying Game, Interview with a Vampire). The Lead Actress? Two-time Academy Award Winner Jodie Foster (The Accused, Silence of the Lambs). Supporting Actor? Oscar Nominee Terrence Howard. The Plot? A warmed over version of Death Wish.

Is it just me, or do these creators deserve a better movie?

Okay. I'll grant you that the whole "person looking for revenge" story is a powerful one. But it has been used umpteen times before. Will The Brave One bring anything new to the table? Or has the topic been examined enough?

Yes, I know that it is Jodie Foster, looking and acting like a female Bernie Goetz. And I'm sure she'll act the heck out of it. But it's been done before. Does it really matter if she's a better actor than Charles Bronson when he did essentially the same role as she more than thirty years ago.

Hollywood gets a lot of flack for lack of originality. This case, I think it's deserved.

2. Dragon Wars (2,269 Theaters, Rated PG-13): I first saw ads for this a few weeks ago, and I wondered why I hadn't heard of it before. Something this big budget with this much CGI usually gets some press in the entertainment magazines or advance buzz on the internet.

One of the reasons why you might not have heard anything is because Dragon Wars (or, as it's alternately called, D-War) is a Korean movie, one of the most expensive Korean films ever made.

The plot basically involves dragons fighting in the skies of Los Angeles. There is some wacky mumbo jumbo about one of the dragons trying to get into Heaven, which adds a bizarre spin to the plot, but this movie should appeal to anybody who likes to see giant beasts trying to kill one another while destroying everything the come in contact with.

To be honest, I might go to see this if they promised me that Godzilla would show up somewhere in the movie. I mean, if it wasn't for him, this movie probably would have never made it over here.

3. Mr. Woodcock (2,231 Theaters, Rated PG-13): Finally, in what could quite possibly the most derivirative weekend of movies ever, we come to this one. Even the poster is unoriginal, apeing the poster for 1998's BASEketball.

The most obvious comparision you could make for this movie would be last year's School for Scoundrels. It also starred Billy Bob Thornton as a teacher whose adversarial relationship with a student kicks up when the teacher begins a romance with someone close to the student. Billy Bob better be careful, or else he might start getting typecast.

The modern dumb comedy has become so incestuous that they have even become quasi-cookie cutter. Take a "high concept" plot, take actor from dumb comedy A, add costar from dumb comedy B, add in an Oscar Winning actress for "What is she doing in this type of movie" shock value, shake and serve.

This is what we essentially have here. This movie essentially follows that formula. But that doesn't mean that it's going to be a success.

Now to the predictions. This is what I predicted for last week:

1. 3:10 to Yuma
2. Halloween
3. Shoot 'Em Up
4. Superbad
5. Balls of Fury

And this is how it turned out:

1. 3:10 to Yuma
2. Halloween
3. Superbad
4. Shoot 'Em Up
5. The Bourne Ultimatum

I flipped 3 and 4, and that Balls of Fury had more lasting power than it did. I am now 51 for 95 in 19 weeks, and have an accuracy percentage of 53%.

This is what a call for this week.

1. The Brave One
2. 3:10 to Yuma
3. Halloween
4. Superbad
5. Mr. Woodcock

What do you think?

Bill

New Guiding Lines column up.

A new Guiding Lines was published yesterday. This week I cover The Groo 25th Anniversary Special, Daredevil #100, Drafted #1, Suicide Squad: Raise the Flag #1, Thirteen Steps #1, JLA Wedding Special, and Heroes for Hire #13.

Books: Reading Comics by Douglas Wolk

Reading Comics: How Graphic Novels Work and What They Mean

Douglas Wolk

To be honest, I didn't make it all through this book. I took it out from the library, renewed it once and still couldn't finish it.

Why? Well, because Wolk doesn't make it easy for readers to get involved in the book.

I wonder what Wolk's idea behind this book was. On the surface, it seems that Reading Comics was to be a guide to for new readers to the world of comics. But the way he writes it is so elitist that I could see it failing in that task.

The first part of the book is where Wolk explains what a comic book is. At times, it appears that he went through a dictionary with a highlighter, and decided to find a way to put the biggest and most obscure words into his text.

I think I know what he was going for. He was trying to show that this is an intelligent dissection of the comic book art form. That Cahmics are Ahrt Dahling! But you can be intelligent without being obtuse.

As you can see in this blog, I use a lot of "big" words too. But not as many as Wolf did. The language of Reading Comics is not inviting. And if you are trying to welcome the largest number of people into reading comics, inviting would be better than exclusive.

The second part of the book deals with critical essays about many different comic creators. Wolk seems to go out of his way to point out something negative about each of his subjects, be they Will Eisner or Alan Moore. I suppose this is in the interests of providing a balanced view to the reader. But, if you are trying to show the good points the medium has to offer, it really doesn't do much good to tear it down in the same paragraph.

This is just my personal opinion, and all based on the idea that Reading Comics is meant to entice new readers in. If it was marketed to fans, I probably wouldn't have as big a problem with it. But as a cheerleader for the "art form", I think it is lacking.

Movie: Shoot 'Em Up and the trailers before it.

Shoot-em-up-709209

This one absurd movie. And I don't consider this a bad thing. This is a movie that essentially a parody of the action movie genre. The good guy always hits with their first shot but the bad guys can't hit the broad side of a barn if it was right in front of them.

The action starts fast. You have to love a shoot out done while a woman is giving birth while Nirvana's Breed is playing. And the action keeps up throughout the movie in the most inventive ways possible.

The acting is first rate. Clive Owen is charming and show flashes of Bond-like coolness under pressure. Giamatti does his best Edward G. Robinson impersonation. His bad guy is evil and even though he doesn't seem it in real life, Giamatti is very threatening in this movie.

This is a movie where you have to buy the kool-aid to enjoy. It invites you to suspend your disbelief and come along for the ride. If you do, you'll enjoy yourself and have a great time. If you don't, the movie will probably be painful experience.

And now the trailers:

• Eastern Promises: This is a story of Russian mafia in London. Why it's not the more traditional Mafia in the US, I don't know.
• Harold and Kumar 2: Yes, these guys are back. From what I can tell, it's about the guys getting into trouble because they are mistaken for terrorists. Because terrorism is always funny.
• Into the Wild: This movie again. I love that the movie bills itself as a feel good story of a wild spirit. But, as anybody who read the book knows, it's not. Can't wait to see the looks on the folks leaving the theater after this one.
• The Kingdom: This one again. It has a great cast, but I am really not interested in the story.
• Mr. Woodcock: These "dumb comedy" movies have a mix and match quality. Take actors from other films, add an high concept script, mix and gel. Doesn't mean that they'll be good.

 

This week's New Releases

1. 3:10 to Yuma (2,652 Theaters, Rated R): I don't know about you, but I like westerns. I'll admit that they are an acquired taste, but it is definitely a taste I've acquired.

 

Why do I like westerns? I could give you a whole bunch of reasons like "I enjoy the way they show America's past" or "I like the primal struggle between law and lawlessness you find in them". These reasons are essentially true. But the real reason I like westerns is because my father liked westerns.

Every weekend, my father would find a western on cable and sit down to watch it. John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, even Audie Murphy found a home on our TVs on those days. And even if I didn't watch all of them, they seeped into my consciousness through osmosis.

This one looks like a good one. It's a simple concept. Christian Bale is trying to get criminal Russell Crowe to the train so he can get shipped up to the big city to receive his punishment. Crowe's gang is trying to stop him. It is a solid concept, which probably is why this is the second time we're seeing it (this flick is a remake of a 1957 film of the same name).

The cast is first rate. I am a big fan of the leads and also some of the supporting cast such as Alan Tudyk, Ben Foster and Gretchen Mol. And I loved James Mangold's last effort, Walk the Line. So this should be one great movie.

2. Shoot 'Em Up (2,108 Theaters, Rated R): You can bring some comparisons between this movie an 3:10 to Yuma.

Both movies feature great casts and solid, simple concepts (In this one, Clive Owen protects a newborn baby from a bunch of criminals). But I think the similarities will end there.

This one seems to be high octane action from start to finish. Sort of like The Transporter meets Sin City with a bunch of old Warner Bros. cartoons thrown in for good measure.

The film got more that its fair share of buzz coming out of the San Diego Comic Con. And it does boast not one, but two Oscar nominees in the cast (Owen and Paul Giamatti). But the plot, while simple and solid, does seem to be a little short on logic and more of a means to an end.

It's so rare when two movies come out in any give week that I want to see. Which one will I see? That's a good dilemma to have. While 3:10 to Yuma might be the better film, this one looks like much more fun.

3. The Brothers Solomon (700 Theaters, Rated R): I guess a sure sign that the the summer movie season is over is the fact that all three movies this week are rated R.

Not necessarily that they are meant for a more mature audience. You can consider this movie an offspring of the Will Farrell/Ben Stiller comedies. The ones where the lead characters are usually pompous boobs, yet somewhat lovable. Only, in the case of this movie, much less so.

This film has the stink of Saturday Night Live all over it. SNL cast member Will Forte wrote and stars in it, director Bob Odenkirk once wrote for SNL (and The Ben Stiller Show, to bring that name up again), SNL castmate Kristen Wiig is the female lead and co-star Will Arnett is married to SNLer Amy Poehler.

The movie, however, seems more stupid than dumb, more raunchy than witty. I do like the fact that Lee Majors and Jenna Fischer are in the cast. But I am not big on Kristen Wiig. She is this era SNL's version of Melanie Hutsell, only with one annoying way of speaking in lieu of one annoying facial expression.

Now with the predictions. This is what I guessed for last week:

1. Halloween
2. Superbad
3. Balls of Fury
4. The Bourne Ultimatum
5. Rush Hour 3

And this is how it turned out:

1. Halloween
2. Superbad
3. Balls of Fury
4. The Bourne Ultimatum
5. Rush Hour 3

5 for 5! 100% percent accurate this week. This makes me 49 for 90 in 18 weeks, with a prediction percentage of 54%. Quite the spike in accuracy, but it'll taper off after this week. This is how I see it.

1. 3:10 to Yuma
2. Halloween
3. Shoot 'Em Up
4. Superbad
5. Balls of Fury

What do you think?

I Pray for Karma: I just got sniped.

So, I just got sniped on an eBay auction I was bidding on: Hembeck illo: Avengers Chorus Line.

Now, I bid only as much as I was willing to pay. And while I dug the sketch, and it would have been the first piece of original art I would have ever owned, I really am not going to kill myself now that I have been sniped out of getting it. But it still rankles me.

The D-Bag that outbid me had put his bid in at 7 seconds before the auction ended. SEVEN SECONDS! I mean, who does that? What was he thinking? What is the mindset of an eBay sniper? Does he think he accomplished something? That he established his eBay superiority? Yes, he won the auction and he owns the artwork, but really, Mr. jet_blaq, if you put that bid in an hour earlier, you still would have gotten the piece. At the same price, I'd imagine 

I hope whoever covers karma as it relates to sniping returns mr. jet_blaq's sniping back upon him tenfold. Better yet, I hope that the next time he tries to snipe, his computer crashes and permanently dies right before the bid goes on. And it just might happen, because karma is a harsh mistress.

In the meantime, I have contacted Mr. Hembeck himself to see if I can commisson the exact same piece from him directly. Try to snipe me then, Mr. jet_blaq!

(Yes, I am slowly growing into a bitter old man. Thank god I have Jen or else it would be twenty cats and yelling to kids to get off my lawn in my future.)  

 

I rant about the "new" TV season.

The new TV season is almost upon us, and I noticed something about the shows--a pronounced lack of originality.

Now, the general motto in Hollywood is nothing sells like success. Lost begot Heroes. and Heroes is begetting a whole bunch of other imitators. And so on and so on. This is nothing new.

But it seems like there is more shows this year that are like shows that came before, that are adapted from other medium or are like each other that there was in past years. Here's a rundown of some of the shows and where they came from. All descriptions come from Aol.com.

American Band (FOX):

DESCRIPTION: The producers of 'American Idol' cue up a new reality competition that scours America for the next great band. Musicians of all ages and styles perform original tunes and covers, vying for a slot in the top 10, where they'll get to perform before live audiences and compete for your votes.

What it's like: It says right in the description: American Idol.

Back to You (FOX):

DESCRIPTION: Chuck Darling (Kelsey Grammer) and Kelly Carr (Patricia Heaton) are Pittsburgh TV news anchors with on-air chemistry and off-air conflict who find themselves sharing a news desk again after 10 years apart.

What it's like: Fraiser meets Murphy Brown/The Mary Tyler Moore Show.

Big Shots (ABC):

DESCRIPTION: Four high-ranking executive pals get together to dish about staying on top of their games, the best ways to mix business with pleasure, and to see how they stack up in a manly pursuit of wealth.

What it's like: Think a male version of Sex in the City?

Bionic Woman (NBC):

DESCRIPTION: Jaime Sommers is an ordinary woman whose world turns upside down when she's involved in near-fatal car accident. Her uber-scientist boyfriend uses his medical skills to save her life by giving her a bionic eye, ear, arm and legs -- but in the process he transforms her life into one filled with danger, action and adventure

What it's like: Um...I seem to remember a show from the 70s by the same name.

Cavemen (ABC):

DESCRIPTION: An insurance company ad gimmick gets the full sitcom treatment as three Neanderthals try to find their place among modern suburbanites.

What it's like: A commercial. It's based on a frikkin' commercial.

Dirty Sexy Money (ABC):

DESCRIPTION: After the untimely and suspicious death of his lawyer father, principled attorney Nick George is approached by the extravagantly wealthy and exceedingly high-maintenance Darling family to take over where his dad left off. His daily duties include legal work and keeping the well-known family's skeletons secured tightly in the closet.

What it's like: An updated version of Dynasty or Dallas.

Gossip Girl (NBC):

DESCRIPTION: Serena Van Der Woodsen (Blake Lively), once the most popular girl in her private school, is back in town -- and her former best friend, current queen bee Blair (Leighton Meester), isn't happy about it. And who's there to blog about all the fireworks? The all-seeing Gossip Girl, natch, just like in the original books.

What it's like: The line of books it's adapted from, and a little bit like The O.C..

Journeyman (NBC):

DESCRIPTION: Commuting takes on a whole new meaning for San Francisco newspaper reporter Dan Vasser, who unexpectedly finds himself traveling through time to change people's lives. That's the good news. The bad news is, he has to explain these sudden and unpredictable disappearances to his family and colleagues -- and finding himself reunited with a long-lost fiancee can't be good for his marriage. Or can it?

What it's like: Two words: Quantum Leap. Four more words: With a romantic subplot.

Kid Nation (CBS):

DESCRIPTION: Reality TV goes all 'Lord of the Flies,' setting up 40 kids -- ages 8 to 15, with no adult supervision -- in a deserted Western town. Once there they must learn to work together in order to build their own community.

What it's like: Like they said above, Lord of the Flies, in a Survivor with kids way. BTW, this has to be the stupidest idea for a TV show ever. I mean, really. Leaving 40 kids in a town unsupervised? A parent leaves one unsupervised and the call child services on them.

Kitchen Nightmares (FOX):

DESCRIPTION:  'Hell's Kitchen' boss chef Gordon Ramsay returns with a reality series that puts him inside struggling restaurants, where he has one week to whip them into shape.

What it's like: Hell's Kitchen, of course.

Life (NBC):

DESCRIPTION: After serving time for a crime he didn't commit, Detective Charlie Crews gets a cool reception from his new police partner and their toughminded boss. Constance is the attorney who finally manages to get Charlie sprung from prison, while Ted is Charlie's former cellmate.

What it's like: Prison Break without the "break".

Life is Wild (CW):

DESCRIPTION: Teen queen Katie faces a major culture clash when her dad and his new wife decide to uproot their blended family from Manhattan to ... South Africa. While Katie must learn to adapt to the new surroundings -- a broken down lodge in the middle of an animal preserve -- the family must bond in order to deal with the change.

What it's like: Everwood.

Moonlight (CBS):

DESCRIPTION: A really sexy vampire P.I. saves innocent people from creepy bad guys and falls in love with a mortal.

What it's like: A show called Forever Knight. BTW, if the show is half as awful as the ads for it, the show will suck on ice.

Nashville (FOX):

DESCRIPTION: The producers of 'Laguna Beach' shift their cameras to a crop of young singers seeking stardom, love and friendship in the capital of country music. 

What it's like: Laguna Beach with a smidge of American Idol. Which means that it is suck on top of suck.

Private Practice (ABC):

DESCRIPTION: 'Grey's Anatomy' goes the way of 'CSI' and 'Law & Order,' with neonatal surgeon Addison Montgomery spinning off from Seattle Grace and heading for swankier, sunnier pastures at a Los Angeles medical practice filled with hot docs and messy romantic entanglements.

What it's like: Well, it is a Grey's Anatomy spin -off.

Women's Murder Club:

DESCRIPTION: A San Francisco detective (Angie Harmon) heads up a group of four smart female professionals, friends and experts in different fields, who work together to solve some of the toughest murders in the City by the Bay.

What it's like: Law & Order SVU meets Close to Home meets Crossing Jordan. And it comes from a line of novels, too.  

 
16 out of the 26 new shows are either retreads, remakes, adaptations or rip-offs. There are some original shows--Pushing Daisies, Chuck, Samantha Who?, Viva Laughlin--but they are outweighed by the not-so-original ones.

I know the networks want to go with safe bets. But this is ridiculous.

Movie: Stardust and the trailers before it.

Stardust-724388

As big a fan of Neil Gaiman that I am, I have never read Stardust. Unless I'm wrong, and I very well could be, it only came out in trade paperback form. And it came out at such a time that my love of Neil could not outweight the effect $20 would have on my budget.

My wife, however, did read Stardust. So it became a moral imperative to see the movie in the theater.

So, what did I think?

Overall, I liked it. I found it charming. It was a good movie, but not without its faults.

What's good? Michele Pfeiffer. I was never a big fan of her acting, but she really excells here. Her Lumia is evil through and through but Pfeiffer instills her with enough charm and character that almost wish she could win.

Charlie Cox is good as Tristan. Robert DeNiro is strong as Captain Shakespeare. And Siena Miller, and actress I don't like at all, has a role in which my dislike of her is a benefit instead of a detriment. Ricky Gervais was good in a cameo.

What were the faults? Well, Claire Danes and her "Kevin Costner School of Bad British Accents" accent as Yvaine. The accent was unnecessary (she was a star that fell from the sky, not one that took the bus from England) and spotty at best. Very distracting.

I would have liked better pacing, namely in the development of the romance between Yvaine and Tristan. The film gives their romance the typical "sniping adversaries" beginning that most movie romances start out with, but the love grows too quickly. You don't see why Yvaine's opinion of Tristan has changed.

Also, I caught at least one continuity error (when Pfeiffer is finding out from her sisters that some one else is chasing the couple, she goes from old to young to old again) and a lot of the movie was predictable. And there was a "Hollywood Ending" added (which doesn't follow with what I saw in the book) where the characters act illogically and slightly dumb to enhance the tension.

But overall, I would say I liked the movies as a whole. It's good elements overweighed the bad.

Now, the previews:

• The Golden Compass: Obviously, this trailer would be before Stardust, due to the similarities between the films.
• August Rush: This appears to be the story of a classical musician who get pregnant with the child of a rock star and then gives the baby up for adoption. The child grows up to be a musical prodigy and tries to find his parents. It seems like it's aching to be nominated for an Oscar, like many other films being released this year.
• Across the Universe: Again, this movie could be a great success or a miserable failure. It seems to be two movies at once: a straight forward linear story musical and a weird and trippy exercise in psychedelia. It would be interesting to see how the two reconcile.
• Elizabeth: The Golden Age: Elizabeth is back and she's pissed! Wow. The first Elizabeth was at once the move most unlikely yet most natural choice to get a sequel. After all, the first one only told part of her story but Oscar calibur movies usually don't get sequels all that often.
• The Spiderwick Chronicles: Another entry in the adapted from a book/kid's movie/kinda scary/world not what its seems genres. Any cast that features Mary-Louise Parker has promise, but the plot doesn't really get me. I'm not a big fan of kids in jeopardy.
• Beowulf: Yeah, I was going to go see this before I saw the trailer. Now I am definitely going to go see it. The movie uses the same CGI technology that The Polar Express did. It looks more realistic yet even creepier. Which might not be a bad thing for the movie.

I am a happy boy!

My Heroes DVD set just came from Amazon! Woo hoo!!!

Heroes - Season One

What am I going to be doing for the next several night? Watching all the epsiodes back to back!

 

My take on the whole Former Senator Larry Craig fiasco.

I had meant to blog about this earlier, but thought the ship had passed. But the case was a big topic of conversation over the weekend with my friends. So I figure I could be safe talking about it.

For you who don't know, Larry Craig was a Senator from Idaho. He was arrested on June 11 for lewd conduct at a Minneapolis Airport, an arrest he pled guilty to at the beginning of August. You can read about it here.

The arrest stemmed from Craig allegedly attempting to receive gay sexual favors from an undercover police officer.

This is especially ironic considering that Craig's record in Congress is very non-gay friendly, with him voting for a law against same sex marriage and against laws regarding gays being discriminated in the work place and violence against gays being considered hate crimes. 

And I say "allegedly" because even though he pled guilty, he said that he did no wrong. He only pled guilty because he wanted the ordeal "to go away".

I never understood this argument. Pleading guilty or , like, Michael Jackson did, settling out of court with the defendant just to make nasty allegations "go away" never really seems to make them go away. More than anything, they act as confirmations that the rumors and accusations were true.

Craig's sexuality is called into question a number of times. He even mentions this in his statement a few days after the scandal broke, calling it a "witchhunt" and naming the Idaho paper, the Idaho Statesman, as a main culprit. As a matter of fact, he said that the stress newspaper's persecution was one of the main reasons why he pled guilty.

But Craig had maintained his innocence and has said repeatedly that he was not gay, even going so far as to accuse the arresting officer of trying to entrap him.

But the scandal brought pressure from some of his Republican co-horts to step down. On Saturday, he announced that he will step down at the end of the month.

My take on this?

• If he is innocent, then he quite possibly could be one of the most stupid people in the land. If the rumor is that you are secretly gay, and you are arrested for proposistioning gay sex, and you are innocent yet you plead guilty anyway, then you deserve to step down as a Senator. People who make that kind of bad decision should not be running the country.
• If he is guilty, well, he is simply a gigantic hypocrite. His political views border on the homophobic. To be have gay tendences and put up that front? He needs to seek counseling. He seems to be basing his political reputation, or at least part of it, at the expense of a group of people who I believe do not deserve that type of condemnation. He is infringing on the rights of a group that need the protection from violence and discrimination he is voting against. If he is in fact gay or bi and still does that, that is borderline evil.
• I don't envy the police officer who has to sit in a bathroom all day. God, the thought of the smell alone makes me wince.
• This might actually sound homophobic in and of itself, and I assure you that it is not intended to be, but I admire the system gay people have in regards to hooking up. For the record, according to the article, what Craig did was tap is foot, slide his foot over to touch the officers, and wiggle the fingers of the hand opposite the stall wall underneath the wall. (Just putting that out there in case anyone, like Craig, you know, "accidentally" do all of the above). Yes, that is a lot to go through, but if straight people had a similar method, my teenage years would have been much happier.

New Guiding Lines column up.

There is a new Guiding Lines column up. This week, I cover Amazing Spider-Man #544, Captain America: The Chosen #1, Lucha Libre #1, Infinity Inc. #1, Buffy the Vampire Slayer #6, Zombie Proof #1, Wolverine #57, and Lobster Johnson: The Iron Prometheus #1.

Yet another MySpace Ho-Train update.

Yes, it's been a while, but the MySpace Ho-Train has slowed down a bit. I got four last week from the company with the picture of the bint wearing the cowboy hat. But they must have read my rant on the MySpace Ho-Train and changed things up a little. Only one of the requests had the cowboy hat girl. The others had either a woman in a Hooters outfit sitting on a bench or a photo of three anonymous women. And the background was changed from blue to hot pink. The layout was the same and the text was the same, but I have to give them points for the effort.

Today, I got another friend request from the company who's gimmick was "Hi, I'm Lisa. I know nothing about computers. Visit the site that has my nekkid pictures." Only this time, Lisa chose Chloe as her alias instead of Jen.

And I have noticed around the internet that in this post-Don Imus world, usuing Ho can get you branded a misogynist. And since some people in the world already think that I am one,  I would like to defend my use of the term "MySpace Ho-Train".

1. I got the term from a FEMALE friend of mine. If she can use it, it should take the onus of the term off for me.

2. I am using it to refer to service where women get paid for showing their naked bodies. I am not referring to an innocent basketball team.

3. It is meant in a humorous. mocking, satiric tone.