"I don't know where we came from, I don't know where were going."

Last day in May, figured I should put something in and make it seem like I put SOME effort in during the month.

So, this past week, I did something fun. As mentioned in a previous post, I saw Beauty and the Beast LIVE on stage. Basically, it was a the Broadway show that tours around and puts the show on for people and such. Going into this show, I was uber excited. Like, I don't know if my expectations could have been higher. Did the show live up to them?? Well, yes. And no. A little bit of both. I'll explain.

The show itself, was fantastic. It was so much fun, and from the very first musical number I felt at home. That's how Beauty and the Beast makes me feel, like I am right where I want to be. So from a purely entertaining standpoint, the show blew the doors off the place. It was so good. The downside to it all though was the little begrudging fact that I had seen this show once before. Now, I realize that it was quite a long while ago, and I didn't remember it in full, but what I did remember happened to play against this particular production. For example, the fact that this was a traveling musical, they don't really have the resources to carry on the spectacular costumes and make-up that I remember from the original time I saw it. They were great for what they were, but I had to sit there watching the play, knowing what these characters and sets once looked like when they were on Broadway. So, experience really worked against me in that aspect.

One other thing that was hard for me to get past as well was the manipulation of the "Beast" character. In the original show, he was fantastic. They got him down to a tee. In this version, he was changed... a little too much for my liking. The character became a lot more comedic than he is in the movie or original stage production. Compared to the movie version, this character was like Nicolas Cage (y'know, funny Nicolas Cage) up there. I can only figure that this was done to please the younger audiences, which is still fine, but I still would have loved to have seen the brutish, somber Beast I have come to know and love. There were a few more negativities as well, including the seemingly rushed second act, and a couple of actors who didn't quite fit their roles (Mrs. Potts could not hold a steady English accent), but I'm pretty sure I would have been able to find quips like that in almost any version of this show.

But, looking past all of those "bad" qualities, the positives outweigh them all. The actress who was cast as Belle, was brilliant. We decided that she looked like the love child of Amy Poehler and Reese Witherspoon, and she had an absolutely beautiful Broadway fit voice. The actor who played the Beast, although he had the altered character to deal with, nailed "If I Can't Love Her", one of my favourite original songs from the musical, so that was lovely. I definitely mouthed along to that song for sure. Gaston eventually grew on me. The guy they had playing him didn't really have the correct build, or voice to play the character, but he did wind up molding himself into everyone's favourite arrogant prick. Gawd, I would love to play that role. That or Lumiére. Either would be fine.

Speaking of the debonair candelabra, the actor they had playing him worked his way into the role as well. So did Cogsworth actually. They didn't quite match the give and take of the original duo, but it was still great the way they interacted. A real standout aspect of the musical as far as casting went actually, were the three women playing the "Silly Girls". They were dead on with the comedy, and I genuinely anticipated everything they did when they came out on stage.

What really was the standout though (as you would probably be able to guess) were the song numbers. Oh. My. Gawd. The first half alone was absolutely worth the price of admission. From the opening moments of Belle, I was in it for the long haul. How they were able to build the entire open market scene from the opening of the movie on that less-than-standard-Broadway-sized stage was just a wonder to behold. Three sets of houses, being moved and jostled around the stage through choreographed extras all the while belting the magnificent opening tune was more than enough to slap a smile on my face and give me goosebumps. It was magical, and as good as I remember during my first trip to see the show a decade and a half ago. Combined with an opening act that then featured "Gaston", with the performers belting out a mind-numbingly awesome choreographed Stomp-esque routine with beer mugs, and then the endlessly fun "Be Our Guest" with lavish special effects and costumes, the opening half of the play was everything I came to see and more. The second half of the show lacked the same pizzazz inspiring numbers of the first half, thus wasn't AS amazing, but it still featured "Beauty and the Beast" (albeit, there was a definite longing for a better set piece for that song... again, they seemed to be restricted by the stage/venue) which is arguably my favourite Disney song of all-time. So, in the very least, it was still goose-bump inducing.

Basically, I loved the show. I mean, I wish I would still have had the opportunity to see it one more time at its home on the Broadway stage, but alas, it's been well over a year since it was cancelled, and I'll just have to take what I can get. And if this is what I have to take, then brother, that's fine with me.

"Cold, and driven to this sad conclusion..."

In two days time, I get to see Beauty and the Beast, the stage show. That's right. The massively popular Broadway hit which took it's final curtain in New York a little more than a year ago, is now on tour, and I get to see it for the first time since I was... oh God. 7 years old maybe?? Has to be. Anyway, it's difficult to express how excited I am for this, because it really just donned on me when "If I Can't Love Her" came on my iTunes just now. I am so stoked. It'll be my first stage show in quite some time. Spamalot may have been the last one that I saw, like, 3 or 4 years ago. So this will be phenomenal. I won't talk about it too much now, just to say that I am starting to count down the hours until I'm sitting in the theatre.

My favourite Disney movie of all-time, and I now get to experience the stage show again with an actual prospect of REMEMBERING IT ALL!! It's going to be great.

Top 100 Movies of All Time: #94 - #93

94. THE DEPARTED (2006, MARTIN SCORSESE)

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Vera Farmiga, Mark Wahlberg, Alec Baldwin, Ray Winstone and Martin Sheen

This post represents my 151st blog post (I started this one before my 150th one, but didn't get it done in time). Rather than pumping out another "Things That Annoy Me On 'Friends'", I figured I would simply keep my Top 100 movie list flowing with a very special two-for-one entry. So, eyes at attention, and let's begin.

We begin with the first Scorsese entry on the list (trust me, there are at least a couple more of these babies). Now, I'm not one who normally likes to put movies from the last couple of years on my lists, but as I've recently realized, 2006 isn't really "a couple of years ago" any more. Thus, I give you the most recent entry in my Top 100 (so far).

The Departed is a very intriguing movie. It doesn't quite feel like a Scorsese movie, yet at the same time it fits right in with the best of his repertoire. There is this universality to the film, something that doesn't really come along with one of his pictures. Usually, there is a sense that only a select group of people who really understand what they are watching will get a film that Martin Scorsese directs. This movie though, that's not really the case. It breaks that barrier, and it becomes a general audience type of experience instead. And it completely works on that other level.

When this movie first came out, I saw it at theaters twice. If you know me, you know that it takes a very special movie to make me see it twice at theaters, so The Departed falls into that select group of films. I believe the original appeal of the movie for me was to see Jack Nicholson being directed by Scorsese. I mean, this was really the last great director that Happy Jack had to work with (he'd done Kubrick, Antonioni, Huston, Polanksi, Nichols, Kazan, Burton...) so having these two involved in the same project was something that I couldn't miss. Why weren't DiCaprio or Damon or Wahlberg a draw for me at this point?? Good question. To tell you the truth, I didn't start to have any such fondness for any of those actors until I saw this movie actually (Wahlberg has actually lost my fond feelings... I'm confident this movie was a fluke for how good he was). But yeah. Going into the movie, it was all about Nicholson taking on a role that was really DeNiro's (in a strange sense anyway).

So, after that first screening (with my brother actually) I was well aware that what I had just watched was something special. It was only the second Scorsese movie that I had ever had the pleasure of seeing in theaters, the way it was meant to be seen. The first time, was Gangs of New York and, yes, it was a definite treat to be able to see that movie at theaters, but it just was lacking a little bit of... something. Maybe it was pacing?? Well, whatever it was, there was no denying that The Departed had something that Gangs was lacking. And I knew it right from the gritty get go, in that silhouette shot of Nicholson that this was going to be something to behold.

I mentioned before that this was the first real time that I had taken notice of both Leo and Damon, and that's actually not a lie. I mean, I had lasted through movies like Titanic, The Basketball Diaries and DiCaprio's other Scorsese roles up until this point, while on the other side of the coin, Dogma, Good Will Hunting and Saving Private Ryan, but I had never seen anything by either actor that made me really sit up and take notice. The Departed acted as that trigger which made me start to see each guy as an actual adult talent. Leo, as Billy Costigan, shed the whole pretty boy thing and shrunk down to the little rodent that he needed to be. I still believe that, had he been nominated for The Departed instead of Blood Diamond (which is actually a pretty damn decent performance as well) he would have given Forest Whitaker a run for his money.

Vera Farmiga is really something to talk about as well. Not only was it a phenomenal "take-notice" performance, the entire idea behind her character is just fantastic. Having the connection between the two "rats" be their relationship with this woman is just fantastic, and a bloody challenge for ANYONE to play, let alone a relatively unknown actress. But she does it. And she somehow does it with dignity. She's sleeping with two guys, and yet we actually care for her as a person. Best. Psychiatrist. Ever (in this movie).

Of course, all of these points cower in the shadow of the best thing this movie has going for it, and that is "the elevator scene". So very rarely does a movie culminate and boil so well that the final, inevitable confrontation has played out so fantastically causing me jaw to literally drop from the shock factor. After this particular scene (y'all know what I'm talkin' 'bout!!) I was simply floored. I couldn't believe what I had just seen. And, still, the movie kept going. It wasn't as though this particular shock happened, and then BAM, ending. No, no. We get, BAM, shock and then... BAM, second shock. That final appearance by that certain someone is just... well, if it were a steak it would probably cost $300 (right Vlad??), let's just put it that way.

All in all, the movie is fantastic. I have actually made myself want to go and watch it right now, but I don't have my copy on me at this second. Shoot (right Mark Wahlberg??)

93. BRING IT ON (2000, PEYTON REED)

Starring: Kirsten Dunst, Eliza Dushku, Jesse Bradford and Gabrielle Union

Umm, so, this one is kind of a cheat. You see, it was actually on TV today, and I never really miss a chance to watch it, and I really just love it so very much, and was going to write about it anyway... so screw it, I'm adding it to me list. Deal with it.

Some may classify this entry under the "guilty pleasure" category of movie watching, yet, I continually find myself seeing the actual, amazing cinematic value of the cheerleading teen dream that is Bring It On. But actually, it's such a good screenplay. It takes the best elements of the teen sub-genre (the best of Heathers, the best of Better Off Dead, etc.) and flips it to meet the standards of the correct era. I actually believe that it is a fantastic movie because of this.

Now, technically, I wasn't a teen when the movie was released. But I was in that group of tweens that always love to love those teen movies that all the older kids love. Make sense?? Well, it SHOULD!! But I remember seeing this movie at theaters, and I remember knowing that it was in fact considered a "girly" movie, and yet I left feeling like I didn't care. I knew it was a good movie then, and I have been increasingly convinced of this fact ever since.

Besides such amazing witticisms as "She puts the 'itch' in 'bitch'" and "Missy's the poo, so take a big wiff" the movie also boasts an actually solid storyline. Yeah, it might be viewed as little bit cliché, but all in all, the "high-class valley dolls" vs. the "straight outta Compton anti-Barbies" works. And it works well. In fact, in the end, when the Rancho Carney Toros come in second place and the East Compton Clovers wind up winning Nationals (a decision that was totally bogus by the way... watch the final routines. The Toros got ripped off) it justifies the entire "cliché" that's had to be endured during the first hour and a half anyway. Come on!! How many movies can actually get away with awarding the final trophy to the competition and still have you be okay with it?? Not many. Not many at all. Especially as far as sports movies go. So they pull off an almost impossible film feat, and that cannot be overlooked.

Another factor that we have in Jessica Bendinger's amazing script is a series of character names that I can't help but applaud and love every time I watch this movie. I'm a person who loves a good character name. I get kind of annoyed when we're subject to a series of "Marks" and "Jacks" and "Jennifers" and "Marys". I think that if you can make an uncommon name work, use it when you can!! In this movie alone, we have Torrance, Missy, Cliff, Isis, Courtney, Whitney, Darcy, Carver, Casey, Les and Jan (the last two are, of course, dudes). So major kudos is due to Ms. Bendinger for taking a chance on naming her characters and actually having them work in the favour of a making the movie better. They sound natural, and they add a level of sophistication to the whole storyline. That's my feeling anyway.

What else this movie accomplishes though, is that it

actually makes Kirsten Dunst seem like a legitimate actress. As difficult as that task is, she is completely capable as head Toros cheerleader Torrance Shipman (again, GREAT name). Then of course you have my childhood mega-crush, Ms. Eliza Dushku. Missy Pantone was, for me, the epitome of babe-liscious. Because of this, I still find her to be really gorgeous, but I will always know that my love of her began with this movie. "I transfered from Los Angeles. Your school has no gymnastics team. This is a last resort..." (my favourite cheer of all-time... well, that one, or one of the ones from the cheerleader tryouts in The Replacements. It's close though).

I think that the undisputed best part of this movie though falls onto the shoulders of one man though. That man of course, is the cheer choreographer, Sparky Polastri. "Cheerleaders are dancers, that have gone retarded." I don't think I need to say anything more than that.

Basically, I think I will always have a huge soft-spot for Bring It On. It gets a bad rap amongst a lot of people because of its association with being a chick flick and the four (how there are FOUR sequels, I will never know) . But, I assure you, it is worth the price of admission. Or the price of a rental. Or more likely than both of those, it is worth the price of the time you will need to spend to watch it. Trust me. It is a lovely gateway to one of the only other decent teen movie of the naughts, and that is Mean Girls. It doesn't have the cult appeal, but you watch it, and tell me there isn't the same intelligence involved in both of these movies. (Although, I think I'll still throw the edge to Tina Fey).

"Hello. It's me."

I think that I've finally figured it out. No, I think that I have. "What" you ask?? Me. I think I've finally figured myself out. 

Now this being my 150th post, I figured it would be as good a time as any to explore this new discovery. 

Specifically, I believe that I have finally figured out what continually holds me back in life. Or rather, the thing that I most fear. Yeah, let's call it that. I have finally understood what it is I most fear in this world, and, despite popular opinion, it is not spiders. No. What I feel is the thing I am most scared of, is being a stereotype. And let me explain...

Throughout my entire life, I have always attempted to hold myself up to other people and be able to say, in at least some small capacity, that I am more of my own person than they are. Well, maybe not "MORE my own person" but the word DIFFERENT would at least have to appear in there anyway. And in this self-comparison with other people, I have noticed that I have continually held back for things that I otherwise may have actually liked. Take an example, shall we??

From as early as high school, I have known myself to make conscious decisions to try and not dress like everyone else around me. I have always been aware of attire being associated with specific image/cultural definitions and have always felt that one should dress in what he/she wants to without having been influenced by any outside sources. So, in this time of my life when fashion has been as important as anything else going on around us, I have always dressed the way I wanted to, being very careful not to emerge looking similar to any one "social clique" that existed around me. And I still do this. I refuse to develop into a scenester, or hipster, or whatever you will. 

It is not just fashion though. I refuse to give up my music tastes to the greater good. I maintain that I love my country music, and my soft alt-rock and so on. When I am recommended a new "Arcade Fire" record or something by "Vampire Weekend" (which, by the way, is one of my most hated band names of all-time), I just can't bring myself to give it a decent chance because that's not really representational of my own, unique personality. That doesn't mean that this particular brand of music is bad, or anything like that, it's just that I am able to make a strictly conscious decision to make sure that I'm not associated with the common stereotype who does in fact like this type of music, and these particular bands. 

I have never been able to understand this desire to conform to a specific taste that a massive group holds. I see all of these people around me in university and in shopping malls and pretty much everywhere else, wearing their big, lens-free "Buddy Holly"-esque glasses, with their secondhand "vintage" clothing discussing who is the greater visionary, Wes Anderson or Tim Burton, or the bleach-blondes in their tiny white tank tops with sweat pants, flip-flops and giant bug sunglasses followed closely by their jacked, Aviator, polo'd boyfriends who look as though they should be a villain in an 80's high school movie, or choose whichever group you wish, there are plenty, and I can't help but question their own choices. I can't fathom their thought process when they look around them and see eight other people dressed almost identical to them, listening to the same band, making fun of the people who, in turn, are making fun of them. I have just never understood this. I don't get it. Why would you ever want to conform to these standards, when you have the opportunity to be something unique. It just doesn't register with me. 

And this is what has finally struck a cord with me. My goal in life is to avoid being a stereotype. And I constantly worry that I am falling smack dab into the middle of some larger mass group of people, which I need to get out of as fast as possible. That is why I am friends with the people that I am friends with. Because no one else I know can interact with the polar opposite people that I do. No one else can be friends with the jock of the year and the head of the drama club. No one keeps completely separate company from a minimum of half a dozen "groups" and/or "cliques". 

I don't want to be like everyone else. I want to have my own voice. And I think this is why I am the way I am. I am a very mediocre student because I don't want to end up in that "arrogant A-student" who thinks they are better than everyone else. I am a recreational sport guy only because I couldn't stand to end up like the "professional" athletes, who take it all too seriously. I am an art student, because at my school, you could hold the visual/creative art talent in one regular sized classroom. And I am a drama/film student because I like the idea of being able to fulfill these particular stereotypes without actually having to BE any of them at the same time. 

So does that make sense?? I really think that my goal in life is to be my own person amongst everyone else. It's a simple idea really, but I've only just stumbled upon this realization as of late. I can't really tell if this is a good thing or a bad thing, or whether or not it is holding me back or not, but I guess now that I recognize this fact, the answers will all come into fruition sooner or later. Well, here's hoping anyway.

I can't really help but feel though, that wanting to "be an individual" puts me right in the middle of a far greater stereotype... Shoot.

"Never Let You Go"

I've been home for most of the past two weeks, and thus haven't really been able to blog. That's what's been holding me back. When I'm here, I don't really have the computer access I do at school. I mean, yes, I have my laptop but it's kind of old now, and I just don't have the patience to spend the time I give to my desktop at school. It's not convenient here at home.

Anyway, what's been new?? Well, I am currently sitting here watching one of ESPN's "30/30" films called Winning Time: Reggie Miller vs. The Knicks. Freely admitting my constant boredom of basketball, it might be odd to find me watching a documentary like this. But this one is different. It's the story of a rivalry as opposed to the sport itself. That's what makes "sport" so entertaining. The rivalries of two teams or more specifically, two opponents. 

The legend of Reggie Miller has always interested me in some way actually. Ever since I started showing a slight interest in basketball, Reggie Miller seemed like one of those guys that I could most definitely side with. He seemed intelligent and like he knew what he was doing at all times. So when I came into contact with the story of "Reggie Miller: The Knick Killer" I had to look further. And I don't know if I have ever come across another tale of pure entertainment revolving around one player dominating the entirety of one other, specific team. The legend of Reggie Miller is just too good not to pass up.

So here I sit, watching TSN, catching this documentary. Having just watched the Bruins blow the knock out of the Flyers and then followed that up by flicking between Everybody's Fine and Four Christmases (both do not seem great, by the way), I figured I needed a little bit of a change from mediocre movies and live sporting events. In other words, I am watching something that is of no value after taking a break from watching other things of no value. Fun stuff!!

"Sweetness Follows"

Critical perception is a funny thing. When I hear that a new movie is getting good reviews, I normally accept that fact, and deem it worthy of a listen or a screening. But for movies that were made before I was born, it's a lot more difficult to have an opinion about them because I was not alive to get the first hand information needed to determine if I should see them or not. Let me explain this a little further.

Back in 1972, The Godfather was released. Unless you have been locked in Buffalo Bill's basement hole for the last couple of decades, you are aware of the fact that Coppola's gangster masterpiece is generally considered one of the greatest movies of all time. So, being born when I was, I was never able to fully understand the fact that at the 1972 Oscars, The Godfather took home only 3 Oscars. Now, in all fairness, one of those awards was indeed the Best Picture honor, but the amazing thing is that another film, Cabaret, won 8 statues that year. Now, because I have always associated the former movie as "one of the greatest of all greats", my perception of Cabaret has always been rather low. I've never really had any desire to see it because I've always expected it to be over rated. A movie that was only appreciated around the time it was released, and one that has not aged as well as The Godfather.

In case you can't tell where I'm going with this, I'll just let the cat out of the bag. I have now seen Cabaret and it is really quite brilliant. To the point where I eventually had no problem admitting that Bob Fosse may have in fact done a better directing job that Francis Ford Coppola. I know, I know. That's kind of a bold statement, but it's true. And I may never have known this if I looked beyond the critical perception of these two movies and given Cabaret the chance it deserved.

I don't want to say much more because the movie may be appearing eventually on my "Top 100 Movies of All Time" list, so I'll just leave you with my favourite song and end it there. Unfortunately embedding was disabled, so click the link instead.

"Money"

Top 100 Movies of All Time: #95

95. MODERN TIMES (1936, CHARLIE CHAPLIN)

Starring: Charlie Chaplin, Paulette Goddard

I am pretty sure that this was one of the Chaplin movies that I didn't see until university. Back in high school, I was first introduced to the genius of Chaplin with City Lights and then subsequently The Gold Rush. After those two films, I did what I could to seek out any more of his work that I could, but that search led me to The Great Dictator and not much else.

So it came as a rather big shock to me when I was sitting in a communications lecture during first year, and the prof decided that he was going to use the lecture time to show us an assortment of clips for Modern Times. And it was brilliant. It was just absolutely hilarious. In the time that I had screened those other films in high-school, and this university class, I had totally forgotten how talented Charlie Chaplin really was.

What I love about Modern Times is that despite the rather simple nature of the whole film, every joke works time and time again. The way in which the events happen is very episodic, yet, you don't care. They are acting almost as individual little vignettes which beneath the surface, are all tightly wound together to make the premise of the whole film. The physical comedy that Chaplin evokes is just timeless as well. The bit at the beginning where he is tightening the nuts and bolts on the conveyor belt is some of the best commitment to a joke that I have ever seen. His coordination is flawless. And then of course there is the new "worker feeding machine" (which the above image is of). I would argue that that sequence is one of the funniest moments in any Chaplin film that I have seen... and it stays as funny, every time that I have seen it.

A large amount of credit is also due to Paulette Goddard. Despite having been made in the 1930's, she transcends the era and makes it look as though she could be playing this part from the present day. That might sound a bit odd, but think about it. When you watch an old movie like this, you are well aware of the era that it is set in because of the way the actors act, or the way they carry themselves, no?? Well, in this film, Goddard overcomes that, and makes it seem as though she is straight out of 1996, or any subsequent year.

My favourite scene in the film, was one that wasn't shown in that communications class. See, the reason that that prof showed us clips, was to initiate visuals about how industrialization was beginning to work at the turn of the century. The scene in which I deem my favourite was one that had nothing to do with industrialization, and thus, I hadn't seen it until I watched the film in full, during another (film) class. The part in the movie that I am referring to is the "The Nonsense Song" sequence. If you have never seen this movie, you may not know then that it isn't actually a silent comedy like the majority of Chaplin's work. It does rely heavily on that typical "silent" humour, but it is in fact Chaplin's first movie he made in the "sound" era.

Anyway, the scene that I love is the most prominent "sound" scene in the movie. Chaplin's Tramp has taken a job at a restaurant with Paulette, and is accidentally mistaken by the crowded room as the night's entertainment. So, he takes his place in the middle of the room, and then gives them all a song... consisting of no real words at all. Instead of taking the opportunity to allow the Tramp, the staple character of Chaplin's repertoire, to speak for the first time ever, he uses the scene to enhance the mystery of the character by having him sing in complete jibberish. The entire sequence is just pure gold, because it comes off as though it's a real song that he's singing. He plays to the crowd, and they laugh at him as though they get what he's joking about, yet there are no recognizable words... just a fake language that he seems to be making up on the spot. Here, watch for yourself:

In an era when silent pictures were becoming extinct, Chaplin embraces his silent film techniques, and makes an absolute classic sound picture without really saying any words at all.

"Honey I'm just trying, to make some sense, out of me."

Remember that time when I blogged, like, every day?? Or close to every day?? Well, it's time to start that shit up again. Summer officially began for me last night, and I plan to take total advantage of this free time by getting back into my writing.

And no, it's not going to be one of those times where I say it's time to write more, and then just fall back into the same pit of despair. No, not gonna happen. The semester is over, and I have no excuse. Well, I mean, I guess I will technically have an excuse, because I'm only off for a week and a half before my summer classes start up, but still!! It's not the same situation, so I'm getting to this thing again.

Or else... something. I don't really have the creative impulse to write something funny there, but SOMETHING will happen!! Perhaps involving pie... we'll have to see though.

Also, hey Jo!! Sorry I didn't write a huge long blog for you to procrastinate with the other day. I was too busy studying for exams and whatnot. I apologize.

"Speedy Gonzalez, why don't you come home??"

Hoping to spark myself into writing more consistently, I figured I'd keep this going with a second post for today. Back in November, I was pumping out like a post a day. I have less posts in 2010 so far than I did TOTAL for the month of November last year. Kind of bad.

Anyway, over the course of the last two days, I have been very "nostalgic". What do I mean by that?? Well, I have taken the last couple of days to discover a few things that I had not previously no experience with. Proof of this?? As I right this sentence, Rick Springfield is playing in the background. And it's both hilarious and awesome. I'm not talking "Jesse's Girl" either. Everyone knows "Jesse's Girl". I'm talking OTHER Rick Springfield. Fan. Tastic.

But the one thing that I had never paid any attention to until now, was a show that I had always written off as "trash". I had never been interested in it, because I always assumed it would be tacky and tasteless and not in the least scary. The show that I am referring to is "Tales From The Crypt" from the late 80's, early 90's. As it's pretty obvious to tell, all of my preconceptions were wrong wrong wrong.

On Friday, on one of the many blogs that I follow (ToplessRobot.com for anyone who's interested) they did a Top 10 list of the greatest ventriloquist dummy centered stories. Now, having always been a tad terrified by ventriloquist dummies, my interest in them had always been quite heavy. Isn't that the way it goes though?? If something scares us, we tend to be intrigued by anything involving that particular thing. Hell, when I'm bored, it normally results in me youtubing videos of Sharks and Spiders and such. Happened tonight actually.

Back on track though. I was checking out this list about ventriloquist dummies, and was familiar with a few of the entries on the list, and laughing at a few of the really obscure, 1950's B-Movie ones. But at number 5 on the list (or thereabouts), an entry called "The Ventriloquist's Dummy" appeared, and it caught my eye. It seemed somewhat contemporary, which confused me, because other than the whole "Goosebumps" episodes set around "Slappy" the dummy, I didn't think there was a movie or an anthology series that would have been around recently to cover the subject. So I read on.

Obviously, I soon discovered that it was an episode of "Tales From The Crypt". Normally, I would have just kept on going down the list, but I had to stop for this one because a name jumped out at me: Don Rickles. This particular episode featured legendary comic Don Rickles as the main character. "Alright. Intrigue me" I thought. So I read on.

The plot synopsis sounded pretty standard. I realized that it also starred Bobcat Goldthwait, which was neither a plus, or minus in it's favour. But there was also a youtube link to the entire episode. This was really compelling to me. I was in the middle of procrastinating on an essay anyway, so why not, I clicked on the video, and started watching the thing.

Right at the beginning, I wasn't fully into it. It seemed kind of cheesy, and a little too campy. But, the quality was better than "The Twilight Zone" reboot, which I have watched a lot of, so I hung in there and gave it the time to get into itself. About half way into the episode, I was hooked.

It was sick. It was twisted. It was funny. But most importantly of all, it was not what I expected. And I'm not just talking quality either. I mean, the actually plot of this particular episode caught me completely by surprise when the big reveal happens at the very end. I mean, I thought I had it figured out. It seemed stereotypical enough. Dummy controls ventriloquist. Ventriloquist goes crazy. Popcorn, credits, curtain.

No way. My jaw literally dropped from the shock of the twist, and how hilariously disgusting it really is. I was under the impression that there were no more twist endings out there. Everything had been done. And then I watched this, and I have been completely re-invigorated with hope that there are still ideas to be had. If you have the 25 minutes to spare, I recommend given it a glance:

So of course, my next course of action after finishing this episode off, is to seek out other ones from the series. And to my luck, youtube had a bunch. So I watched another one. And another. And by jove, they just kept getting better and better. All of them, with their mix of maniacal humour and horrifying gore, harken back to the beginnings of Sam Raimi's career, or Peter Jackson's. This show was exactly what "The Twilight Zone" for the 1990's should have been. I'm so pissed it took me this long to figure this out.

Now, not all of the episodes that I have seen end up having that same "100% Awesomeness Guaranteed" mantra, but they are all, in the least, entertaining to watch. Probably the best one I have seen so far is "Carrion Death", about a criminal who escapes prison (played by Kyle MacLachlan) and is pursued by an officer in the desert. The two engage in a fight, where the officer handcuffs the criminal to himself. Of course, the criminal shoots and kills the cop, but not before the cop swallows the handcuffs keys. So now, the criminal has to try and make it through the desert, to Mexico, with the dead body of the cop attached to him at the wrist. How fucking amazing is that!? It's so very good. "Cutting Cards" is phenomenal as well. Lance Henrikson is in that one.

Anyway, over the past few days I have been biding my time with this show and wondering to myself why we don't have any of these awesome things any more. Like, where is our anthology horror series?? Or where is our Rick Springfield?? Or where is our Brat Pack?? (Sorry, I watched The Outsiders last night for the first time, and it was okay, but why can't we have a group of awesome kids like that in Hollywood today?? Ralph Macchio!? C. Thomas Howell!?).

The naughts were a weak decade peeps. Very, very weak.

Playlists: Exams

It feels as though everything that has been posted on my blog recently has begun with an apology to myself for neglecting writing on here. So, instead of doing that this time (because, let's face it, it's happened again) I'm just going to dive right into the post.

This is the second installation of the whole "playlist" thing. I figure a month later (give or take) is when I normally rotate my songs on my iPod and such, and although there are always a couple of carryovers that stick with me for elongated periods of time, there are always a couple new entries into the ol' electronic record player.

Without further ado, I give you my "Exams" playlist...

"Ten Million Slaves" by OTIS MILLER

If the song title doesn't ring a bell, then you will probably recognize it as the main track (it's not OFFICIALLY the main track, but it's the one most prominently featured) in Michael Mann's very, very less-than-mediocre Public Enemies. This song is great for two reasons: 1) I love hearing it and being reminded of the movie's trailer which was SO awesome. It makes me forget for a second that the movie itself never lived up to the quality of the stellar preview in which this song was featured. 2) Miller's mix of old-school folk/blue grass and contemporary electric rock is perfect. There is this aura around the song that allows it to almost transcend time. It harkens back to the 1930's but sounds like it was made yesterday. In accomplishing that, it meshes together a gumbo full of southern rock essence. Fantastic.

"Bad Things" by JACE EVERETT

The "True Blood" theme song?? You betcha. Do I watch "True Blood"?? Absolutely not. I just love the opening of it. I wish the show could have lived up to that. Oh well. The song from the opening credits is wicked. In every sense of the term. It's badass country at its best.

"Work in Progress" by SISTER HAZEL

Probably my second favourite band behind Counting Crows, Sister Hazel have always, always, always put out music that I love. "Work in Progress" continues to pop up on my playlists every now and then because it's a massively upbeat tune with a harsh reality behind the lyrics. Besides finding that I relate to being a "work in progress" as they preach, I love the way that they develop the personality of the song. For some reason I relate it to Ben Folds' "Song for the Dumped" in that they are almost making excuses but in an "in-your-face" kind of way, so as to not lose face with anything. Have I read to far into this?? Perhaps. But either way, it's a fantastic song that strays away from their more soft rock-esque music and falls into a category basically by itself. It's fast. It's catchy. And it's great to boost your confidence after writing an exam you think you did pretty well on.

"American Saturday Night" by BRAD PAISLEY

The inclusion of Brad Paisley's newest one is on here really just due to the fact that it's Brad Paisley's newest. Simple as that. The man is probably the best male country artist working today and everything that he produces is usually fucking gold. This song is no exception. I haven't loved it as much as "Celebrity" or "Online" quite yet, but it's at least on the same level as "The World" or "Alcohol". Especially considering I haven't been up to date on my country ever since a lot of the new artists started sounding the same, it is good to know that Paisley is still around producing some great, new classics. Very reassuring.

"Private Conversations" by LYLE LOVETT

When I was younger, I hated Lyle Lovett for no other reason than I thought he was too weird looking to have married Julia Roberts. And I've never had any excessive feelings for Julia Roberts either, I was just against someone that odd marrying outside of his own league. Apparently when I was younger, I had celebrity marriage issues. Anywho, now that I've grown, and luckily happened upon some of my dad's music, I have heard some of Lovett's music. And by golly is it awesome. With "Private Conversations", I have yet to have mastered the actual lyrics themselves, but it has such an awesome, gentle tone that I haven't needed to learn the words quite yet. I enjoy just listening to the smoothness of it while walking to campus in the morning. It really helps to relax me, which I definitely need sometimes.