Not Meerly Fuddy

Just days ago, I asked for suggestions on what I should review next. I will get to those comments with a later post, but for now, it's back to my quest to review every production put on here at SMSU. Our theater (or theatre) department just put on David Lindsey-Abairre's Fuddy Meers. It was directed by Nadine Purvis-Schmidt.

It was good. It was quite funny and, at times, touching. For those of you readers who are unfamiliar with the show, the plot breaks down like this: Claire has amnesia. During the course of a day, she can learn all sorts of things and she'll remember it all until she goes to sleep. At that point it all slips away. She is whisked off to her mother's house by a limping man one morning. As the play progresses, we see her learn the true identities of everyone around her including her husband, son, mother, ex-husband, and a few others. The play follows the basic plot structure of a farce. The pace of the action is very fast, but unlike most classic farces, Lindsey-Abairre takes time to stop everything and allow his characters to come to terms with the craziness that surrounds them.

The nice thing about the script is that it is filled with interesting characters. The playwright managed to put lightning in a bottle with Gertie, Claire's mother who had a stroke and now cannot speak properly. She comes across as very real. She was played here at SMSU by Nissa Nordland and she was truly a joy to watch. In my review for A Body of Water, I talked about Nordland's struggle to portray her character's age, but there was no trouble here. She really threw herself into this character. I've seen Nissa in a lot of plays, and this might be the best performance I've ever seen her give. I don't mean to ignore the other actors in the show. Everyone did admirably. I wouldn't say that there was one person who gave a bad performance, but Nissa Nordland was unquestionably the show's MVP.

This play wasn't all sunshine and lollipops, though. It had some problems. There were issues with the sound. Sometimes it came in too loudly, sometimes it didn't come in when it was supposed to, sometimes the scene changes took longer than the sound cue that was supposed to accompany it. Which brings me to my next thing. Modern playwrights are crazy about scene changes. David Lindsey-Abairre is no exception it seems. It just killed me sometimes. I'm watching a really good scene, the pace is great, the audience is feeling it, the play is really picking up speed and momentum and then BAM! There's a blackout for a scene change and I'm sitting in the dark for two minutes. That kind of thing takes me completely out of the moment. That's more of a complaint about the script than anything, and that's where I need to head next.

While this is a good script, I have some real problems with it. Now, I said before that its strength was its characters, and that's true. But not all characters are created equal. There are seven characters in this show, and three of them are saddled with quirks to make up for their lack of substance. I'm speaking of Kenny (Claire's son), Heidi (a cop who isn't all that she seems), and, finally and most blatantly, Millet (an escaped convict with a foul-mouthed hand puppet). Kenny isn't as bad as the others. He has some great stuff at the end of the play, but in the beginning all he does is pout, say angry things and smoke pot. His big quirk is that he's seventeen but he's still in eighth grade (so funny! Oh, wait, no it isn't. It's quirkiness for the sake of being quirky). The thing with Millet is that he is a completely utilitarian character. He exists in the play to bring people into the other room so that private conversations can be held. That's all he does. So his character is made to seem cooler by adding the hand puppet (I will admit, when auditioning, I was taken in by the whole puppet thing. I genuinely wanted to play Millet. I was wrong and I'm very thankful that the director realized that I wasn't right for the role). You want to talk about quirky for quirky's sake? That's it right there. That's almost Seth MacFarlane levels of laziness. Fortunately, Lindsey-Abairre is a good enough writer that he can work around his own laziness and the actors in the production that I saw were all good enough that the play wasn't hampered by it too much. I realize I wrote a lot of words to describe a problem that didn't really bother me until well after I had left the show. Oops.

All in all, Fuddy Meers is a good show. Nadine Purvis-Schmidt directed it well and the entire cast gave solid performances. I had a few bones to pick with the script, but a good cast and a good crew with a good director (like we had here) can mostly overcome those complaints. Fun stuff.

Fuddy Meers: 3.5 out of 5 skulls
This Post: 2 out of 5 skulls

P.S. For those of you who did not see the show and are wondering why it is called Fuddy Meers:
As Gertie, the stroke victim, tries to jog Claire, the amnesiac's, memory, she talks about going to a funhouse and looking at the mirrors. The mirrors were funny. Funny mirrors with Gertie's particular speech impediment sound like fuddy meers.

The Limits of My Own Creativity

Well, interwebizens, it finally happened. I hit a wall.

You may have noticed I haven't posted many reviews these last few weeks, outside of performances here at Southwest, that is. Well, the reason is this:

I can't think of anything that screams out at me for a rating. I know, I know, it's pathetic. Here I am running a web-log dedicated to reviewing everything, and I can't think of anything to review. In my defense, I have been busy with school work and with writing some scripts here and there, but that isn't a very good excuse for letting down my six or seven faithful readers. At least my esteemed brother and colleague, the Jukebox Gyro has a legitimate, fantasticly awesome reason for his lack of content on this site. I've just been dropping the ball.

Which brings me to the reason for this post. I don't know what to write about-but you may have some things you want to read about. So I put it to you, interwebizens, what should I review next? We have a comment section. I suggest you use it.

This Post: 2 out of 5 skulls

Liquid Assets

As I said in my last post, I plan on reviewing every production put on here at SMSU this season. This past weekend, the drama club put on a production of Lee Blessing's A Body of Water. It is a relatively new play and was helmed by first-time director Nick Collins.

I must say that I enjoyed the play. The script was pretty tight, and Collins got some good performances out of his actors. This is not to say that the production was flawless. It wasn't. The night that I saw it, the curtains were not secured to the side walls of the Black Box, leading to a great number of distracting shadows. I found my eyes being drawn away from the action on stage to these shadows more often than not which is a shame, because it took me out of few genuinely touching moments. The only other complaint that I had on the technical side came at the beginnings of each of the play's five scenes. The sound design featured some very interesting guitar music, but instead of the music fading to lead the audience into the next scene, it cut out abruptly. Now, I know that that's a really minor gripe, but it was really jarring.

As far as what was going on on-stage, I don't have too many complaints. As I said earlier, Collins got some very good performances out of his cast. However, there were some problems. The biggest issue for me was that I never got the sense that the show's main characters, Moss and Avis played by Eric Niece and Nissa Nordland respectively, were old. I knew that they were supposed to be old, but I never got a sense of their ages from the performances of the actors. There was also a little hiccup in the first scene where they were trying to push the humor a little too hard, but they soon got into a groove and created some really fantastic moments. This all brings me to the third member of the cast, Amy Gielser. Without her, this play would have suffered greatly. No performance is ever perfect, and hers was no exception, but it felt to me that Giesler gave Nordland and Niece exactly what they needed to really make the show crackle. Individually, all three of these actors are good at what they do, but their chemistry together really elevated their performances a notch. That being said, they could have used some more movement. Collins' blocking provided a lot of good pictures, but sometimes it all felt a bit static.

All in all, I was very happy with this show. I know that the rehearsal period didn't exactly run smoothly, but the finished product was entertaining and, at times, very powerful. I think that everyone involved should be proud of what they were able to accomplish.

A Body of Water: 3.5 out of 5 skulls
This Post: 2.5 out of 5 skulls

Coming Home to Improv

While I like to use this web-log to spread around my opinions of various things from the world of pop-culture and so forth, I also wanted a place I could go to write up honest, unflinching appraisals of the work that I and my colleagues here at Southwest Minnesota State University put on stage. So far, I have reviewed our Orientation Sketch Show, and soon I will be posting reviews of both the Drama Club production of Lee Blessings' Body of Water, and David Lindsay-Abaire's Fuddy Meers. But before all that, we had our annual Homecoming improv show.

All in all, it went pretty well. We had a great audience that gave us some fantastic suggestions, and most of our improvised situations got laughs. Some of the sketches went long and felt forced, especially "Newscasters," "Sounds Like a Song Cue," and "Complaint Department." That being said, "Party Quirks," "Revolving Door," and "Gibberish Murder Mystery" went absolutely swimmingly. I realize that most people reading this who weren't at the show probably have no idea what those titles mean, but if you were there, you probably agree with me.

I gotta say, I'm looking forward to our next improv show. With more experience together, we'll probably be able to establish better chemistry and our greener troupe members will have a better idea about what games play to their strengths. This Homecoming show wasn't perfect, but I think it was a good start.

Take 2 Improv's Homecoming Show: 3 out of 5 skulls
This Post: 2.5 out of 5 skulls

See, It's a Western, Right? But in Outer Space!

Joss Whedon's best known work can often be distilled into so-called blank meets blank statements. Buffy the Vampire Slayer was Valley Girl meets Dracula. Dr. Horrible's Sing-along Blog was comic book villain meets musical theater. Which brings us to the red-headed stepchild of his oeuvre: Firefly/Serenity. Firefly can be most easily described as Stagecoach meets Star Trek (an interesting combination as Gene Roddenberry famously described Star Trek as a Wagon Train to the stars). Now, it may be unfair to call Firefly a red-headed stepchild. It was beloved by most critics and has a very devoted fan base. The fact of the matter is, though, that the show failed to stay on the air, making it tragically unique among Whedon's other famous projects.

But this web-log isn't about history, it's about rating things. How, then, does Firefly stand up to my scrutiny? It stands up pretty well, I gotta say. Its concept borrows a bit from the Japanese show Cowboy Bebop (a personal favorite) in that it features a ragtag crew of people with their own histories and demons trying to make a buck in the cold depths of space by means both legal and not so legal. The characters are well thought out and well acted, the visuals are mostly good (the special effects are a little cartoony), and the show keeps the pace up without wearing the audience out. If I had my way, it never would have been canceled. I would put it right beside shows like Freaks and Geeks and Undeclared and Sports Night and Arrested Development and Futurama in the ever increasing file of shows that were cut short before their time. Seriously, it's that good.

Where the whole thing falls apart is with the movie. Serenity kind of blows. I don't mean that it blows in the same sense that, say, Bloodrayne blows. Its flaws come from Whedon trying to do too much. The TV show introduced mysteries about several characters (Summer Glau's River Tam especially) and the movie focuses all its might on explaining away almost all of them. The reason it doesn't work is that it creates too much need for exposition. All the crap that needs explaining would have been nicely stretched out over the course of a season, but here, it gets crammed into a movie that isn't even two hours long. To say the film suffers from it is an understatement. The performances by the actors were a little rough, also. They weren't terrible, but they could have been a lot better.

All in all, I'd say it would be a good idea to give the show a chance, but avoid the movie unless you really, really can't get enough of this universe.

Firefly: 4 out of 5 skulls
Serenity: 2 out of 5 skulls
This Post: 3.5 out of 5 skulls

The New Poll Positions

Buenas dias, iterwebizen-erinos!

I have some news for you regarding the poll questions that appear along the side-bar of this, my most beloved web-log. From here on out, I'm going to keep the results of the last few polls at the bottom of the bar so that you don't have to read a long winded posting to find out the victorious answer. So, you know, that should be fun.

Also, I have put up a new question. I was struggling to think of a new question, so I went with an old standard: Favorite Simpson's characters. I know I love the choices that I put up there, but many of you may see fit to disagree with me. That's okay! This is America (or whichever country you live in), you are entitled to your own opinion (unless you are reading this in a country in which your opinion is given to you in a fashion similar to government cheese). That's why I have the "other" option on there. But I ask you this favor: If you select other, please add a comment to this post saying who you would have chosen had he or she been available. That's why the comment section exists, after all.

That's all I've got for now. TTYL, or something.

This Post: 2.5 out of 5 skulls

Conversations: Gladiators of America

Showtime: Recently, NBC's re-launch of American Gladiators finished its second season. Watching the season finale, I got to thinking about the Saturday mornings of my youth and the many hours I logged in watching Mike Adamle and Larry Csonka guide America through event after event featuring everyday, amateur athletes doing battle with a bevy of mighty, muscled gladiators.

Now, I am a fairly nostalgic guy. There are things that I watched as a kid that I'll still go back to for some guaranteed enjoyment (specifically, I can't get enough of Flight of the Navigator). I like old things and am frequently not stoked about remakes. For this reason, I went into the new Gladiators with a skeptical heart. I was, eventually, won over. Just to get it out of the way, I would give the new American Gladiators a 3.5 out of 5 skulls. That being said, let's get into some specifics.I would love to hear your opinion on the events of this new show. I think that the two signature events on American Gladiators are the Joust and Atlasphere. When you see an American Gladiators reference, be it visual or otherwise, it usually involves one of these two events. It shocked me to see that the new show waited until the semifinals of its second season to bring back the infamous giant, steel orbs, but the show is better now that they have returned. Also, putting Joust over a swimming pool really adds to the fun of the event.

So I will ask you, oh brother mine, what are your favorites? What events could you do without? Do you find Rocketball and Skytrack to be as dull as I do? What should they bring back? Are you jonesing for a return of Human Cannonball as much as I am? And how would you rate the new show?

Gyro: I don't know how I feel about syndicated Saturday morning programing late 1980's and early 1990's in general and American Gladiators in particular. Look, I love spectacle. I like to watch things blow up. I go to fairs and street parties to people watch. I gawk at accidents. But my fear is that any new success found by Gladiators would lead to a return of RollerGames or The Ultimate Warrior. This world is not strong enough to handle either of those possibilities.

When the first season of the retread premiered I watched it. It was silly, absurd and I saw at lease 3 episodes plus the finale. But my nostalgia for Blaze, Laser and Blazer has run its course. Even my crush on Crush petered out. (lecherous pun intended)

I think I do know how I feel. Kind of sour. American Gladiators had some camp appeal. But it ran out. It was pretty neat seeing Jet win, and Rocket can really climb that wall. But I just can't get excited for it. I say, bring back the 30 foot wall and send the jammers up the side. Then have them jump over some alligators. Follow that up with Hacksaw Jim Duggan swinging a 2x4 and then bring me a Kerry Von Erich Tornado Punch. Now that is nostalgia.

So let me ask you this: Can American Gladiators aspire to be anything more than brainless entertainment? How much gladiators would you consider a healthy dose? And what are they going to bring back next - BJ and the Bear?

Showtime: You make some good points. I didn't watch the first season of the new Gladiators, so who knows if I'll get burned out on it come the next go-round. As for this show leading to a revival of Rollergames, I doubt it.

TNN (now Spike TV) already got burned fairly harshly on its attempt at a Roller Derby show a few years ago. It's just too hard to give the right mix of spectacle and honest to gosh competition with that event. That's why I like American Gladiators. The events provide the spectacle while the gladiators give us our competition. Every match is a David versus Goliath type of thing that eventually becomes a David versus David situation in the Eliminator. That's why I really don't think this will have a domino effect on programming. If anything, it's refreshing. American Gladiators, to me, has become like Survivor except all the crappy tribal council stuff is gone and it's just people trying to win games. It's reality competition with a drastically reduced amount of reality show b.s. I suppose I'm saying that the show strikes me as retro programming being used to usher us away from the worst parts of current programming. If that makes sense. I'm not sure.

That being said, I hope they follow their plan and only do the show during the summer. I would probably watch if they threw it into the winter lineup to avoid airing too many re-runs, but I think this show works perfectly as a summer tournament. I ask you, though, did any of that make sense to you? And would it make you happy to see a new, post 9-11 A-Team? Because I can totally see that coming before BJ and the Bear.

Gyro: Well, I have to salute you for taking the high road and refusing to take the bait of Kerry Von Erich. But let me expand on my main issue with gladiators: it is one thing for a 260 pound pile of muscle to whale on an accountant on Saturday morning but in prime time? Was the movie "Idiocracy" an amusing lark or chilling tale of things to come?

You know me, I'm not a high-faluting elitist. Big Trouble in Little China is one of my favorite movies. I can't help but think that Gladiators doesn't just scrape the bottom of the barrell - it re-establishes a bottom and then scrapes that. Why not just watch Battle Dome?

But the competition is hilarious. In the first season some former marine put a huge gash in her forehead during the Eliminator. It was sweet. Also, anything where girls wrestle is fine by me.

Showtime: Believe me, it was very difficult not to make a crack about the late Mr. Von Erich, but I wasn't sure how he killed himself and didn't want to make a crack about the Texas Tornado blowing himself away if he had actually slit his wrists or something. Restraint, dear brother: it's practically my middle name.

But I digress. I think you make a good point point about "Idiocracy" and prime time television playing to the lowest common denominator, but I don't think American Gladiators is the show that deserves the blame. While they do have their fair share of episodes that focus on sob stories set to hyper-inspirational music (see the episode with the guy who only had one leg), they really don't pander that much to their audience. They show a bit of smack talk, but the focus of the show is always on the athletic competition. Just because that athletic competition is fairly goofy and one-sided in no way makes the show into bottom-feeder entertainment.

As I said before, The bottom of the barrel was already well-worn territory by the time NBC brought Gladiators out of the trash can. Between Survivor, Big Brother, The Bachelor, Average Joe, Joe Millionaire, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire, Flavor of Love, Rock of Love, Hogan Knows Best, Celebrity Fit Club, Celebrity Rehab, Date My Mom, Parental Control, Next, Elimidate, Blind Date, Shipmates, Cheaters, My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance, that lie detector show, and pretty much everything Vincent K. McMahon has ever touched, I think American Gladiators is a step up.

That being said, you are absolutely right about girls wrestling.

Gyro: Well stated as always, good sir. And way to rattle off the list. I think you've convinced me. Gladiators isn't the worst thing in the world. It is spectacle and mindless, but it isn't the worst.

Up All Night

Insomniac

Green Day

Reprise 1995

I haven’t always been a booster of Green Day.  I owned a copy of Dookie back in the day and wasn’t much of a fan.  It had some catchy songs and received huge MTV and radio airplay but it never really captured me.  Over of the years, I gained more exposure to them.  I think Warning is a good album.  American Idiot was one of the biggest albums of 2004.  Today, I am reviewing Insomniac.

In my eyes, Insomniac plays like a concept album.  It tells the story of a young, well off young man and his decline into meth addiction and his eventual clean up.  The first two tracks introduce the subject: a well-to-do loner living of his family’s money.  In Brain Stew, he tries speed for the first time and after that, he slides into drug abuse, panhandling and any number of self-destructive activities.  He crawls out of the gutter and ends the album as an empty suit.  The album is peppered with full on bombast, catchy melodies and fist throwing break-downs.  Creepy musical introductions light a fuse for musical dynamite.

Insomniac doesn’t boast the commercial success or sound of Dookie, Nimrod or American Idiot.  There isn’t a radio friendly song like Basket Case, Time of Your Life or Boulevard of Broken Dreams.  Insomniac challenges listeners to follow along as it lays the building blocks for other great Green Day albums – most notably Warning’s musical range and American Idiot’s deeper exploration of a concept album.  More than that, this album feels like a reaction against the financial windfall of Dookie.  Insomniac drops the snotty, wise-ass attitude in favor of something darker.  Call it a minor key.  Call it hard-boiled cynicism.  Call it the real world.  Whatever it is, this album captures it.

This is one of my favorite albums.  It has considerable replay value for me.  I would recommend it to anyone.  Today, gentle reader, I recommend it to you.

Insomniac by Green Day: 4.8 out of 5 skulls.

My ability to write about music without writing about the music: 4 of 5 skulls

Incoming Freshmen Welcomed by Overflowing Toilet Humor

As many of you loyal readers know, I have no problem laying out critiques of my own work. After all, every single posting that I have published on this fledgling web log has received a rating. With that in mind, I would like to take a look at the 2008 Southwest Minnesota State University Orientation Sketch Show.

Every year, we in the Drama Club write and perform a comedy show for the incoming crop of freshmen. This year was no different. We performed twice this weekend with varying results. On Saturday night, the crowd was standing room only and very responsive to our act. Almost all of our scripted sketches got big laughs and the improvised sections of the show went fairly smoothly. The show started with some very racy content, it was accepted, and we cruised through the night on a wave of laughter and fart jokes. Life was good.

Then we got to Sunday night. Unfortunately, there was not a lot of word put on the street about our second performance, so the crowd was pretty sparse. It didn't help that there were "mandatory" house meetings in all the dorms on campus, but that's neither here nor there. Our performance wasn't great. The sketches were designed to be big and broad. That doesn't really work with an audience of 15. I will say, though, that some of the improvs were much stronger on Sunday, so it wasn't a total loss.

What it comes down to is that we had an up performance and a down performance. Not everything went perfectly on Saturday, and not everything was a mess on Sunday. In the end, though, we got laughs, good times were had by most, and we found a few new people who were interested in joining our little club.

2008 Sketch Show, Saturday: 4.5 out of 5 skulls
2008 Sketch Show, Sunday: 2 out of 5 skulls
This Post: 2 out of 5 skulls

Results with an Eggy, Lilac-Tinged Feel

Well, my beloved, witty, urbane and most probably bored interwebizens, five of you have spoken and we have a tie! It seems that Louie the Lilac as played by Milton Berle and Vincent Price's Egghead are equally the most feared and beloved Batman villains. Good for them. The Otto Preminger Mr. Freeze put up a good fight, but his flirtation with victory was short-lived (much like his affair with Dorothy Dandridge!). Oh, well. At least he wasn't shut out like Roddy McDowell as Bookworm and Rudy Vallee's nuanced portrayal of Lord Marmaduke Ffogg.

For the next poll question, I thought I might do some cross promoting. The Jukebox Gyro and I have been kicking around a new Conversations piece about American Gladiators and I was wondering, who is your favorite Gladiator?

Batman Poll Question: 2.5 out of 5 skulls
This Post: 2.5 out of 5 skulls

A Madden-ing Experience

I'm just gonna come out and say it: Madden 09 sucks. Maybe it's right in the wheelhouses of many gamers throughout the world, but I just can't get behind it. It doesn't work for me and I'll tell you why.

I have played many entries in the twenty year history of the Madden NFL series over the course of my life. I've played it on Genesis, SNES, Dreamcast, Playstation, X-Box, Playstation 2, and X-Box 360. I always liked it well enough, but it wasn't until Madden '03 that I really got into the game. That was when my friends introduced me to Franchise Mode. We would build our teams up, draft players, make silly one-sided trades with the computer controlled teams and have a good time. We would then simulate the regular season and only play against each other if we met in the playoffs. At that point, we would play each other head to head. This is important to my opinion of the new game, so let me repeat it. We would play each other head to head. In the same room. Often sitting on the same couch. Right next to each other. You can't really do that anymore. You see, for the last couple of years the people at EA Sports have changed the play selection menus from their classic, tried and true format.

It used to be that, when selecting a play, a gamer would first pick the formation in which his team would line up. At that point, three different plays would come up on the screen. Each play would be labeled with a different button that, when pressed, would select that play. This way, the person that you were playing against would have only a limited idea of what your tiny, make-believe football men were going to do. The system wasn't broken, but EA Sports decided to fix it anyway. Now, a gamer must highlight the play he or she wishes to implement, leaving no questions in the mind of an opponent who happens to be playing on the same console.

Now, I understand that there is a huge on-line community for this game. An if you're playing on-line, the play selection system is fine. But I don't play on-line. I can't share a pizza and a beer with someone I'm playing against that lives in Denver. That isn't fun to me. Apparently, though, that's the only kind of fun that Madden '09 wants me to have.

Madden NFL '09: 1.5 out of 5 skulls
This Post: 3 out of 5 skulls

Ratzenburgher Results

Well, my charming little interwebizens, the Ratzenburgher poll has closed. It appears that, of the seven people who voted, the Underminer won as the favorite character given voice by the undisputed top choice when it comes to actors who played a mailman on Cheers. It should be noted that those seven votes constitutes a record here on weblog. Let's see if we can't get eight on the next one.

Speaking of the next one, let's do something topical. I've decided that a whole month is a bit long for a poll question, so we're gonna see how two weeks treats us. But what, you may be asking, is going to be the next poll question? I decided that in honor of the success of The Dark Knight (4.5 out 5 skulls, by the by) I would ask who is your favorite Batman villian? Check the sidebar for choices.

John Ratzenburgher Poll: 2 out of 5 skulls
This Post: 2.5 out of 5 skulls

Soon I Will Think of a Suitable Pun for This Post's Title

Greetings and salutations, my beloved interwebizens!

If you recall from my V for Vendetta review, I am a big fan of comic books. In fact, I enjoy reading in general and so I finally got around to reading Austin Grossman's novel, Soon I Will Be Invincible. The novel is told from the perspectives of 12 time almost world conquering supervillain Dr. Impossible and superhero cyborg Fatale who has recently been promoted to the big leagues of the spandex wearing set. Every other chapter is told from the first person view of one of these two characters with Fatale getting the even chapters and Dr. Impossible (naturally) getting the odd ones. The story involves Dr. Impossible's escape from prison and ensuing evil schemes and Fatale's efforts with the New Champions to stop him. Peppered throughout are ruminations by both narrators on their pasts and on the people who have influenced or are currently influencing their actions.

Let me first state that this book is quite a fun read. It moves quickly and is very witty. It makes fun of the tropes of superhero comics without deriding them and often elicited audible chuckles from me (there were also a couple twitters and one outright guffaw). To say that I did not enjoy the book would be an outright lie. I did enjoy it. That doesn't mean that I wasn't bothered by a few things.

I found that the characters could be a little inconsistent. For a good portion of the novel, Dr. Impossible is driven by his need to reveal his identity to his nemesis, CoreFire, after he finally is able to defeat him. This is because they had known each other for years, going all the way back to high school and many of the most important milestones in each of their lives were tied together. But the thing is, two other members of the Champions went to high school with Dr. Impossible and CoreFire and it was implied that they were there for some of the most embarrassing moments in his young life. Yet does he get them in on the big reveal? No. He doesn't. I understand that your nemesis is your nemesis and you need to focus your efforts or whatever, but it rang somewhat false. That's just one example.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that this book has some tremendous build-ups in its story lines, but almost all of the resolutions fall a little flat. Although, I suppose I would be kidding myself if I said that that wasn't a common occurrence in even the best superhero stories (see Ultimate Spider-Man #106-110 and both seasons of NBC's Heroes among others). Hopefully Mr. Grossman will take a cue from Dr. Impossible who, when his plans don't exactly work out perfectly, dusts himself off, escapes from jail, and starts up on something new.

Soon I Will Be Invincible: 3.5 out of 5 skulls
This Post: 2.5 out of 5 skulls

Beast with a Billion Backs

Futurama is one of my favorite shows of all time. It combines silly non-sequiters, science jokes, nerd culture references and an occasional dash of schmaltz into a half hour pleasure-fest. Unfortunately, the show was cancelled in 2000 something or other. But good news everybody! Thanks to popular replays on Cartoon Network and Comedy Central, Fox brought the show back for a series of feature length direct to DVD releases.

The Beast with a Billion Backs is the second Futurama direct to DVD release. The story centers on a dimensional rip caused by, you guessed it, Bender’s greed and hubris. In a fit of depression, Fry seeks to end his miserable existence and cross over through the dimensional rip. When Fry returns to his own dimension he is the leader of a new religion. He offers love and happiness through a tentacle attached to the back of one’s neck. Will the world go crazy for this new fangled religion? Will the Planet Express crew save the day? Will time prove Professor Wernstrum correct?

For this review, Showtime and I will try a new format. We will post a series of e-mails we sent each other while discussing the movie. For now, let's call this new feature "Conversations"

Jukebox: Generally, I was kind of disappointed. Does anything ever live up to expectations? I don't know. Maybe I need to watch it again. Bender seemed tired and worn out. I know he is a robot and is a product of his programming but more than ever in the series he seems schtick-y. I feel like the writers had a check list and said, "Well, we haven't had the phrase 'fun on a bun' yet. How about here."

That attitude translates a little bit deeper in the movie. It seemed they were always working in the one-off characters of the Futurama universe. Did you see Leila's plastic surgeon and fellow orphan? How about Morbo's wife? Ah, they brought back Bender's amplifier friend for a walk on. Hilarious! So Eric, do all these self references make for a better movie? Are they distracting from the plot - whatever that was?

Showtime: I've gotta say that I mostly agree with your review. I didn't quite get the sense of catch-phras-itis that you site, but I can see how you felt that. What I really had a problem with was the inconsistencies in the story. David X. Cohen points out in the commentary that they had just finished a very emotional arc involving Fry and Leela, yet they just zipped Fry right over to Coleen without a second thought. Speaking of Fry and Coleen: that story was not funny or interesting. At all. Frankly, I didn't really care much for the Yivo story either.

The parts that I really responded to were Kif and Amy's wedding/widowhood/break-up and Bender's adventures with the League of Robots. I know you weren't crazy about the Bender storyline, but I loved it. I enjoyed looking at the background and seeing Humorbot and a variety of other classic peripheral characters. Also, I like Bender's shtick and I like seeing said shtick unfolding on the screen.

I guess what I'm saying is that I was not distracted by the peripheral cameos because their presence distracted me from a plot that I really didn't care for. And that, my esteemed colleague and brother, brings me to a question for you. What did you think of the actual main plot of the movie? It left me cold, but I would like to hear your take on it.

Jukebox: I suppose I could have spoke about the actual movie, not just the ephemera. Can we edit this to make it look like I started with an actual review, not just fan-boy griping? No matter. Did I miss my chance to mention that I liked the murderball/Wernstrom plot line?

The plot was gonzo and not really fun gonzo. A being from another dimension is good sci-fi stuff. A good writer ought to be able to get some milage from the enslavement of Earthicans. I guess it was okay. I like that it brought Farnsworth and Wernstrom together. I didn't expect Kiff to die. But the whole heaven thing? And then Bender as a pirate with the Robot Devil's army? I just don't get it.

What is the message of this movie? Is it that we all need to sit down and give plural marriage another look? Okay, I get it the symbolism. Fry fell in love with a girl and that girl was in love with several other men. Then Fry fell in love with a giant tentacled monster who had the capacity to love all the people of the world. If the goal is to throw out our previous notions of monogamy then I would recommend the book Stranger in a Strange Land.

Here is my problem. Too many plots and too many characters for an 90 minute movie. It lacked cohesion. How many of the plot lines we mentioned could be cut up into their own half hour segments? How many of the plot lines would be entertaining as a non-serialized, episodic, stand alone adventure? More to the point, brother o' mine: Are Futurama and its fans well served by these movie releases that could just as easily be individual episodes?

Showtime: You, brother mine, have posed the twenty thousand dollar question. On the one hand, I would say that any new Futurama is a good thing. There are so many shows that I wish I could see more of: Freaks and Geeks, Undeclared, Arrested Development, etc. And I believe that Futurama was canceled before it should have been. However, I now worry about the taint that this movie (and, to a lesser extent, Bender's Big Score) is applying to the Futurama legacy. I would hate to see these movies become the Futurama equivalent of recent seasons of The Simpsons. Occasional moments of brilliance, surrounded by uninteresting, tangential dreck.

That being said, I'm not quite ready to throw in the towel. Bender's Big Score was pretty good and The Beast with a Billion Backs had some good stuff mixed in there. I still have hope that David X. Cohen and crew can right the ship. However, if the next DVD is of similar quality to this one, I'm out. I don't want to run the risk of these movies giving me a retro-active distaste for a show that I care deeply for in the same way that the fourth and fifth seasons of scrubs ruined the first and second (yeah, I used to like Scrubs. I know I lose, like, fifty million HDB points for that, but I'm okay with that).

Jukebox: Y'know what I like about us? We hit the nail on the head. I'm not ready to give up, either. I am looking forward to the next movie. It looks like the nexus of all things nerdy as the Planet Express crew goes into the world of Gary Gigax.

Hey, this was fun! The post is the longer than all of our posts put together, but it was a blast. Let's do it again sometime!

Put It On the Wall (-E)

There is not a whole lot that I can say about WALL-E that could not be relayed to you, my dear denizens of the interweb (I shall, from here on out refer to you as interwebizens), by Mary Poppins' tape measure. It is practically perfect in every way. I have to watch it again, but I think this might just be my new, all-time favorite movie. That's a pretty big statement because, lately, I've been trying to avoid sweeping hyperbole of the sort found in the previous sentence. I have mostly taken to delving into my favorites in very specific sub-genres (see the sidebar). This movie, though, has me breaking rules with a giddy, reckless abandon. Words cannot describe the quality of this film.

Arbitrary rating systems, on the other hand, do a pretty good job.

WALL-E: 5 out of 5 skulls

Silver Butter Knife

There are two things I love in this world: the tragically comic and the comically tragic. Like FDR and that weird torch thing, they are two sides of the same coin. Occasionally we are lucky enough to find both at once. I found them on facade of Murray's Steakhouse.

Murray's is an institution in downtown Minneapolis. They provide only the finest aged steaks, chops, cuts and fillets. You're damn right you order a la carte. Allegedly, they serve a steak that is so tender a a person can cut the steak with a knife made of silver that would normally be used for butter. Either that or the knife was made specifically for cutting and spreading some sort of silver butter.

I love the building. I love the aquamarine tile. I love the picture of the steak. It looks like it was produced in Austin, Minnesota and came from a tin can. I love the appetizing salad garnishing the steak. Yes, I believe that is arugula. And I love the neon overload. Murray has to be a good business man. His restaurant has an impeccable reputation and has survived many decades. But on the signage, he got took. It looks like all the marketing strategies of the mid 50's threw up. And I love it.

Garish? Yes. But it is America and Murray's is a steakhouse.

5 out of 5 skulls.

V for Very In-Depth Comparison

I remember going to the cinematic theater here in Fabulous Marshall, Minnesota when the film version of V for Vendetta came out. I really enjoyed the film. At the time that I saw it, I really wasn't that familiar with the writings of Alan Moore or with his tendency to distance himself from movies made based on his books. When I did find out about the man and his distaste for the filmic incarnations of his stories, I thought to myself, "Well, that makes sense for something like The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, but V for Vendetta was actually good. What gives?"

Then I read the comics. I still didn't get what Moore was fussing about. Then I read the comics carefully, keeping an eye out for themes and so forth. That's when, finally, I understood. There are tons of nit-picky things that I can focus on between the film and the book as far as differences go and what works better and what doesn't and on and on and on, but those little things aren't what really separate these two incarnations. What it gets down to is a mind set.

The Wachowski brothers, in writing the screenplay, made changes to the story so that it could appeal to a broader (read American) audience. In an interview, Alan Moore cited this specific change in mentality as the biggest flaw in the film. A quote from Mr. Moore: "[The movie] has been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country… It's a thwarted and frustrated and largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values standing up against a state run by neoconservatives—which is not what the comic V for Vendetta was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about England."

Even more than that, V for Vendetta is about consequences, something that the film lacked. In the comics, V's tendency to kill people resulted in widows. Moore dedicated numerous heartbreaking pages to one of those widows in particular: Rose Almond. Naturally, neither she nor her husband appear in the movie. The Wachowskis wanted V to be the unerring hero, not a terrorist whose actions hurt people that don't deserve it just as much as those who do. Removing the consequences from the proceedings robs the audience of an opportunity to think. V becomes a white-hatted do-gooder instead of an antihero coated in gray. A story about anarchy, fascism and the similarities and differences that join the two becomes an action flick from the guys who brought you Speed Racer and The Matrix: Revolutions.

Now, I've been pretty hard on the movie thus far, but I want to be clear about something. Taken on its own, it is a pretty entertaining little movie. I didn't notice many of the flaws in the film until I encountered the source material. So I'm not going to say it is a bad film. What makes me hate it (and I do hate it now) is knowing what it could have been. It is deeply frustrating to look at characters like V, Evey, Eric Finch, Gordon Dietrich, and Adam Susan (Sutler in the movie for some reason) who I know to be complex and thought provoking and see them reduced to the hero, the sidekick, the cop, the comic relief, and the bad guy. It's just such a waste.

V for Vendetta (the book): 4.5 out of 5 skulls
V for Vendetta (the film): 2.5 out of 5 skulls
This post: 3.5 out of 5 skulls

For the Readers (all 3-5 of you, if that)

Hey, everybody!
I just wanted to let everyone know that this here weblog now features a monthly survey! How exiting, kind of!
Also, Gyro and I have each finished our lists of favorite things along the sidebar, so feel free to check those out! If there is something you would like us to add to our lists, post a comment, and we'll add that item! I'm not sure if you can post comments directly to the lists, but if you throw a suggestion onto any of our reviews, we'll make sure that something happens about it! Please make sure that any suggestion is very specific, though!
Keep on coming back for more updates!
Exclamation point!

This post: 2 out of 5 skulls

Crystal Skullduggery

Well, dear reader, I finally decided to contribute my review of the new Indiana Jones feature length film movie show. Now, I should say here that I am one of the few people on the interweb who really enjoys Temple of Doom, and if I like Temple of Doom, it'll take a lot for Dr. Jones to disappoint me.

To ruin any suspense that may have built up over the course of that introduction, I really liked the movie. It started off with a bang and, despite a slower moving middle section, kept the momentum going satisfactorily. Obviously, the movie isn't perfect. I still don't really see why the pompadour monkeys were involved and the sword fight on the back of the jeep was rather poorly CGI'd, but the sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle references to the previous films and the old Young Indiana Jones Chronicles more than made up for them in my estimation.

It could have used more uses of the phrase "kali-ma...kali-maaaaaaa!" though. I love that part.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: 3.5 out of 5 skulls
This post: 3 out of 5 skulls

Beer. . .or is it?

Over ninety years ago, our country began a national nightmare. That nightmare was prohibition. I don't need to recollect that horrible, sober era. It wasn't all bad. Schell Brewery, who at the time was only about 70 years old, expanded into new areas. Schell brewed and sold its own brand of root beer. Today, we can buy that neutered brew. Pictured is the 5 gallon pony keg of 1919 Root Beer. It was on sale at a local grocery store for $16.99. That seems like a good price for a great soda pop.

1919 Root Beer - look for it in the Dairy Aisle. Next to the cottage cheese (?)

Five out of Five skulls

Has Been

Has Been by William Shatner
Shout! Factory, 2004

Many years ago, the robot devil gave William Shatner an unholy acting talent. In exchange, Mr. Shatner agreed to be a walking punch-line. From his stop-start delivery to his stint as a tough beat cop to Priceline Negotiator, Shatner has become the man nobody takes seriously. Has Been changes part of that.

Produced by Ben Folds, the album consists of Shatner speaking . . . . . .over music. The best tracks aren’t songs so much as short stories set to music with Shatner giving them character. Most notably is “What Have You Done,” where William describes finding his wife dead in a swimming pool. It is a haunting, chilling and sad tale that offers us a small glimpse into the mind of William Shatner. Another trackfeatures Shatner trying to reconnect with an estranged daughter. Shatner’s spoken parts are desperate,rambling phone messages left by a father who had one too many cocktails and is called a few years too late. Another standout is an enthusiastic cover of Pulp’s “Common People.” Shatner’s voice bobs and weaves its way though British class warfare with entertaining results. This record isn’t all one big joke but it isn’t all serious, either.

Has Been will not end up on anyone’s top 100 records of the decade. However, it is worth a listen and many of the songs are good for a chuckle. In one track, a gospel choir helps Shatner spells out the world’s one great truth: you’re gonna die. In another, Shatner and Henry Rollins discuss things they can’t get behind. A third is the spaghetti western “Has Been”where Shatner finally zings his critics. From the silly to the serious, if a friend owns this record, I recommend borrowing it.

Score: 2 of 5 skulls

How much would I pay on a scale from zero dollars to pull Price: $3.79 (25%)

Uwe Boll'd over

A short time ago, a call was sounded throughout the land of the Internet to sign a certain petition. That petition called for director Uwe Boll to never, ever, ever make another movie. I confess, at the time, I didn't know much about Uwe Boll. As far as I knew, I had never seen one of his films. For this reason, I decided to bite the bullet, and watch Bloodrayne.

Oh, dear reader, it was so much worse than I ever could have imagined. What, you may ask, was my first clue that I was in for a painful viewing experience? The phrase "with a special appearance by Billy Zane" appeared two minutes into the credits. Billy Zane. Nothing against Mr. Zane, but, outside of Back to the Future and Zoolander, his presence in a film is never a good sign. Then the movie actually started.

Do Michelle Rodriguez and Kristanna Lokken attempt to use vaguely British accents? Yes. Does anyone else? No. Does it feel like Michael Madsen and Sir Ben Kingsly are having a competition to see who can phone in his performance the most? Yes. Do they both win? You bet. Do the fight scenes come across as overly edited so that it was hard to figure out exactly what was going on and where major characters were standing in relation to each other? Yes. Did it look like any of the actors had any sort of comfort level with the weapons they were using in those poorly edited fight scenes? No (I suppose that the actor's unfamiliarity with their props could have necessitated the choppy editing, but, Jiminy Christmas, that stuff was awful). This movie was just bad. From stem to stern it was a big pile of stinky.

Now the question becomes, "was Bloodrayne so bad it's good?" No no no no no. It takes the presence of some sort of redeeming quality for a movie to become so bad it's good (from here on out, I'm just going to use the abbrieviation SBIG). There needs to be a certain level of quotability, or a sense of fun coming through in the actors' performances, or some halfway decent cinematography, or something. Bloodrayne has none of these.

It's official. Uwe Boll must be stopped. For the good of the world, he must be stopped. Where do I sign?

Bloodrayne: 0 out 5 skulls
this post: 3 and 1/2 out of 5 skulls

My Final Persuasion

Well, ladies and gentlemen, I just got done taking my final in Mark Fokken's Persuasion class here in Fabulous Marshall, MN. The test was comprehensive without being over long (it was only worth 100 points). As is often the case with final exams, and as is especially the case with Fokken tests, the majority of the points were to be won through short answer/essay questions. This test was really, really difficult. It reached back to some of the more obscure points from early in the semester to really challenge we poor, frazzled few in the class to prove our knowledge. It was a helluva thing.

Test Construction: 4 out of 5 skulls
My Performance: 2 1/2 out of 5 skulls
This Post: 3 out of 5 skulls

Welcome, Reader (if you exist)!

Well, dear friends and neighbors, I finally decided to stop quivering in fear of this interweb thing that so many people seem to be fond of nowadays. The result of this new appreciation for technology is this web-log: Showtime Eric Rates It All For You. I can safely say that I give that title a solid three and a half out of five skulls. Not bad for a first outing. In the coming weeks and months, I will be posting my opinions of pretty much anything I come across. Why? Because, while I may have better things to do, I may as well just do this.

This entry's rating: two and a half out of five skulls.