VERSUS: Match One!

WHO: Edgar Allan Poe VERSUS William Shakespeare

PREDICTED WINNER: Poe.

WHY: Poe's wirey and cranky and he's deeply devoted to whatever passion he's fulfilling at the moment.

LET'S GET IT ON!!!!

Poe didn’t care where he was—didn’t even care that after turning down a foggy alley in his beloved Boston the ground beneath his feet had changed from the uneven cobblestones to slimy, pitted earth. All he cared about was finding out where that wonderful smell was coming from. Oh, the sweetness of it. Like burning sugar and cut wood. Whiskey.
After spying a troop of drunken ne’er-do-wells flopping out of a doorway, singing aloud to a song with no melody, Poe figured he’d found his destination. The place was small, dark, and dirty. Just the place for his weary mind and heavy stomach. Again, his tunnel-vision prevented him from noticing that he was being noticed. Everyone in the place was glaring at him. But he sat down and ordered a whiskey. Silently, the inn keeper filled a wooden cup with the brew and gave it to the large-headed man with dark eyes. Poe took a single sip.

“This is terrible,” he said. Then he slugged it down and ordered another. But before he could bring the bowl to his lips, there was a commotion behind him, drawing his attention. A puffy-shirted gentleman came into the bar hollering incessantly about something or other. Poe’s head throbbed too much for him to care.

The huffy man slammed his hands on the bar and bellowed a guttural bark of frustration. Then he turned and looked at Poe, his eyes scanning him up and down like they were on springs. Poe admired the man’s costume, complete with starched, frilly collar. He certainly was a dandy. Must be part of some traveling group of actors up from New York, he thought.

“Sir,” the man said to Poe. “Be thee an alien?”

Poe looked at the man from the corners of his eyes. There was a striking familiarity to him, but the horrible alcohol was already clouding his overcast mind. He simply nodded and drank down his whiskey.

“From where dost thou deliver?” the man asked.

“Boston,” Poe grunted.

“Boss tone,” the man repeated. “Be it near far-Germania?”

Poe set the cup down on the bar and sighed, motioning the inn keeper for a refill.

“If you pardon me, sir, I wish to drown my sorrows in quiet melancholy,” he said. “I bid you good afternoon.”

The man took a step back, his round face reddening in the cheeks as if his wide collar had suddenly gone tight.

“You address me thus?” he huffed.

Poe turned on the man. He just wanted a quiet afternoon with his favorite vice, his most recent muse. Why wouldn’t this over-educated buffoon simply let him drift into maddening inebriation? Instead, he chose to ignore the gaudy purveyor of stage-English and downed his whiskey hurriedly.

But then the man’s hand gripped Poe’s shoulder and thrust him backwards, spilling his wooden cup of liquor.

“Dost thou take me for a rogue?” the man demanded. “Am I little more than the shite ‘neath his lordship’s heel?”

At that instant, Poe saw the man’s hand slipping closer and closer to one of the many belts he wore around his waist—the one carrying the small dagger. Without much need for mental clarity, Poe took up the nearest weapon to him, the wooden bowl, and tossed it into the brash bastard’s face. And in the instant the man closed his eyes and reacted to the projectile, Poe leaned down and charged his rival, slamming his large head into the man’s soft belly.

The two fell to the floor in a tangled heap, Poe doing his best to land a solid hit through all of the fabric the man wore. When that failed he raised up slightly and brought down both hands onto the man’s nose with the force of a meaty hammer. The man yelled in pain and flung his attacker off, curling into a ball. Poe took the opportunity and lashed out with his leg, the wooden heel of his boot connecting firmly with the side of the injured man’s head.

The man went down, groaning. Poe strode up to him, towering over his prostrate frame. He could hear the soft whimpers of defeat coming from the loud-mouth’s bloodied lips. My God, how good he felt. It was the first fight Poe had ever won. All those times as a child when he was the one bleeding came back to him. Like the ghosts of so many of his stories, the faces of the bullies lingered just out of his field of vision. And they made him angry. He wanted them to watch, wanted them to be afraid. He’d tried it with words with some success, but now he would give them something new to fear. Something new to himself.

Poe lifted his leg and brought the heel down again. The patrons in the bar gasped in horror. Good. They gasped when he did it again and again. Soon they stopped gasping, but Poe did not stop. Not until he was drunkenly satisfied.

He left the bar, trailing bloody shoe marks in the rugged dirt road. And after a bit of wandering, he passed through the fog bank and tripped over the memorable cobblestones. When he woke later that night, still in the alley, he found it hard to walk. Upon returning to his apartment, he discovered the heel of his shoe was missing and his trousers caked with dried gore.

With his head buzzing from the inferior whiskey, he lay down. Just before he shut his eyes, he noticed a small bust above his writing desk. It was of a huffy man with a too-wide collar, with similar features to the man Poe had bested the previous night. The engraved name: William Shakespeare.

WHAT THE HELL JUST HAPPENED: Basically, Poe went ballistic and took his adversairy by surprise. I think that had Shakespeare been given another heartbeat, he might have pulled that knife and stuck Poe, ending this early. But Poe's built up rage actually worked to his advantage here. He lives to fight another day--probably with his own demons, though. And he might not win that one.

Introducing VERSUS!

I haven't done a blog in a while, mainly because school has started up again and I've overloaded myself. But Friday's are set up to be my easy days, so I might get to do one a week--more if I get nice and tweaked.

Anyway, with all the down time I don't have, I've decided to to start up a new thing to try and gain a wider reading audience--these four people just aren't cutting it (not that I don't totally love you guys for reading, because I do. You all rock!!)

I'm going to be doing a VERSUS column.  What is that, you ask?

VERSUS is going to be a fictional encounter between any two people where I come up with a setting, and a reason, and let them duke it out! Oh yeah, you heard me. I'm talking prime-time fighting revolving around two random people (real or fictitious). I'm going to break it up into three sections. Section One will be the breakdown: who's fighting and who's predicted to win. Section Two: the fight (ding, ding). Section Three: recap and explanation of why it turned out the way it did. 

I know that Wizard Magazine used to do something like this with comic characters, but I haven't been able to afford one in a long time, so I don't know if they still do. But mine is going to be awesome! You want Darth Vader versus a ninja? You got it! How about Superman versus the Little Mermaid? Boom! Done. I'll even throw in Mother Teresa versus Cthulhu just because I can.

BUT HERE'S THE BEST PART: I'll be taking suggestions from my friends on who goes at it next. And if I get stuck, I'll post a poll where you can vote on the victor--but the most popular choice might not necessarily win. Why? Because anything can happen, baby!

So if this sounds interesting, then tell your friends to follow me here or on Facebook so that they can get in on the action, too. But don't wait too long, because you never know when I'm going to change my mind. Sometimes I can get a little bit like Hunter S. Thompson on acid, mushrooms, and booze.

Somebody Help Hamburger Helper

I was at the store the other day, checking out the Hamburger Helper section--yes, we're that poor that Hamburger Helper is now in our cupboards. I looked at all of the different Helper helpers and was actually kind of impressed that they have such a variety, breaking it down into meats (tuna, chicken, or hamburger), and then into ethnic varieties (Italian, Asian, Mexican). I wasn't really paying that much attention though, because my eyes skimmed over most of them without a second glance.

But then I saw this young mother reach out and grab a box of Hamburger Helper Italian Spaghetti and Meat Sauce. It took me a second to register what had just happened. Now, I know that a box of Helper is pretty cheap, usually around $3, and in these hard times people look at price more than ever. But I can't for the life of me figure out why someone would bypass an entire aisle in Wal-Mart containing all kinds of flavored sauces and shapes of pasta for a box of Helper. Yeah, a jar of sauce is about the same price as a box of Helper; a pound of beef is about that much too, so you've doubled the price. Then factor in that the pasta costs a little less. So you're looking at a meal that costs about three times as much as the Helper. But think of the serving size.

The recommended serving size on Helper is 1 cup, prepared. That isn't much. And when you consider that when they show the stuff in the commercials, there is usually about three side dishes and a salad and bread. I doubt that mother was fixing such a lavish meal to her and her son. Now compare that to the jar, meat, and pasta and you get something different.

I mean, honestly, in most families, when it is spaghetti night, that is the feature item, usually served with a salad and bread, but nothing much. It is a meal in itself, with protein, grains, vegetables, and dairy if you like cheese (and who doesn't?). Plus if you get the big box of spaghetti, you can serve, like, ten people as much as they want.

I don't know. Maybe I'm missing the point of Hamburger Helper Spaghetti and Meat Sauce. Maybe it exists for the same reason the Chef Boyardee has canned Spaghetti and Meatballs. But I can see a need for canned, pre-cooked pasta. With the Helper, you still have to cook the noodles.

Anybody out there had Helper Spaghetti? What did you think? Worth it? Or is it better to get a jar of sauce and a box of pasta and make it your damn self?

Scott Pilgrim vs. Me

Thanks to a free trial weekend of Cinemax, I was able to DVR a bunch of movies I have not yet seen. One of which was the much-hyped Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.

Let me start by saying that I'm sick of Michael Cera. I liked him as George Michael Bluth on Arrested Development--and so must everyone else, because that is the only character he plays! From Superbad to Juno to Youth in Revolt, Cera plays the same stammering, weak-voiced kid with a chip on his shoulder and a desire to prove he's more than his character's cliche. But he always fails. Now, I actually liked Youth in Revolt, but that was only because of the alter ego his character created. The pathetic loser Scott Pilgrim is no different. From the very beginning, I hated the kid. He moped around for most of the movie, mumbling, whining and making me want to kill myself, and I'm supposed to identify with this idiot? His few shining moments actually came out of the blue, as in, he'd be getting his ass kicked and then come up with some cunning strategy for defeating his rival. And don't give me the argument that this is a movie about a kid who has video game-style battles, that I shouldn't take it so seriously, because all of that aside, this is a character-driven story, and the characters sucked.

Moving on to Romana. Mary Elizabeth Winstead was amazing as that character, but I, again, hated the character. Chicks like Ramona suck! They're selfish, egotistical, and fake. They pretend to be edgy and open and all about sexual power and freedom, but all they really want is for someone to look at them and want them, though they don't want to be tied down or labeled as a "girlfriend"--which is why girls like that are usually the ones who end the relationships, as shown in the movie. If there is one thing this movie got right, it is showing how ridiculous girls who act this way can be. I'm sorry, but I don't care how hot you are or much you pretend to be into me, if one of your ex-lovers shows up and demands I fight, then see ya! No girl is worth a vicious uppercut from a vegan-powered, anime-inspired, former Superman, Brandon Routh. And to make matters worse, this bitch runs off and hides when there is a fight (over her, by the way), only to randomly pop up later and say that "I do that sometimes." Piss off, you ditsy cow! I whooped up on three super-beings for you and you disappear, probably off flirting with some other unsuspecting loser to get a free cup of coffee. Gah! I hated Ramona and really think that Scott should have gotten back together with Kim, the cute, girl-next-door drummer.

Whew! Moving on . . .

This film actually did something a little different in that the actors they cast to be in their early 20s looked more like they were in their early teens. Usually, it's the other way around. I mean, is Sarah Michelle Gellar still playing a high school girl? While I thought that it was a good choice to actually cast actors into their age-appropriate roles, it looked off to me. Maybe I'm just too old. The little Asian girl who played Knives was actually the only one who I thought was just perfect. She was supposed to be younger than the others and really looked it.

My absolute favorite thing about this movie was Kieran Culkin! His portrayal of the openly gay, laid back, witty roommate and bed-buddy of Scott was genius. I could have watched a whole movie about him. Usually, I dislike gay characters in film and TV because I often feel as though they are thrown in there to be gay, and for no other reason. Lately there seems to be a rash of randomly gay characters popping up where sexual orientation plays no part in the story and is just there for a shock value. But Wallace Wells is the kind of homosexual that I'd like to party with. Why? Because he's cool with his sexuality and isn't forcing it on those around him. He isn't there to creep out a homophobe or make sassy, really faggy comments. He's just gay--and yes, it does play into the story, so I'm all for it.

Though I really didn't care for the story, I loved the way it was presented. Sadly, I think the irony of the 16-bit video games were lost on the characters and most of the audience. These kids were born into the N64/Sega Genisis/Playstation era and weren't around for the golden oldies of Contra, Super Mario Bros., or The Legend of Zelda. If this story were about a bunch of 30-year-olds looking to rekindle their past, it would have made a lot more sense--and I could have tolerated Scott Pilgrim chasing the worst kind of female creature there is.

Over all, I rate this a C-. It lost heavy points for having shitty characters and an over-used plot, but it gained points for its unique style and excellent use of star cameos.

Fight the Future of Video Games!

Every video game needs some kind of major hook in order to make it more appealing to consumers. Some developers give things away when you preorder the game, which is by far the most appealing and most expensive option. But the most popular option is the downloadable content (DLC), special things--usually costumes, weapons, levels, or entirely new games--that you download to your gaming platform of choice for a small fee or for free with a special code.

But what about people like me who have a slow internet connection, one that isn't hooked up to my P$3? Well, the game industry has come up with an answer: TOO BAD!

I was in a video game store just recently to sell some of my old games and I asked the guy working there about the Back to the Future video game, and when it would be released for the consoles. He told me that there are absolutely no plans for the game to be released on a disc that I can pop in my machine and enjoy. His information was confirmed by the video game's website. So here is a game that I really want to play, one that I've been waiting for since it was first announced some three years ago, and I'm being told I can't play it. Oh, sure, I could spend the money and download it to my computer, only to have the download time itself out after eighteen hours or so.

I'm just sick of all of this DLC that sounds pretty cool, but that I'll never be able to see. And to make matters worse, the companies act like it's my fault--basically by saying that it isn't theirs. But yes, it is their fault. They are the ones who are taking this content out of the game and putting it someplace where only a select number can access it. If they wanted to, it would be easy for them to include the stuff within the game itself and just require a code to be entered to access it. That's how it used to work.

The one company I will give props to is Rockstar Games. They released an expansion pack that was DLC for their successful western Red Dead Redemption called Undead Nightmare, which is a handful of new missions, weapons, and characters centered around a zombie outbreak. Then, they did something sweet. They released it on a disc so that rural slobs like me could have a chance to play it. I don't know why this is so hard for other developers to do.

Sadly, this is only the beginning. We're already seeing entire music albums being released online only. The same goes for the "webisodes" of television shows. Even movies are gaining success with internet releases, so it was only the natural step for video games to follow. Unfortunately, this means that more and more heavily-hyped titles are going to be released online only, because it is much cheaper for the game makers to sell just the data than it is for them to produce thousands of plastic discs and packaging. There is already a device that you can buy which gives you access to games, much in the same way that Netflix lets you watch movies through your internet-connected console. I forget the name of this thing, but I can only imagine a near future where the P$4 won't even have a place to insert a disc because it will be an all DLC machine.

And that's where I'll stop. Because I like pretty cases sitting on the shelf that I can stroll over to and pick up and look at. People have tried to tell me that books will soon be phased out for this Kindell or Nook, or that magazines and newspapers will become extinct and available only on the iPad or some other tablet. But that's horseshit. Books will always be printed. Video games are another story. And with games going straight to DLC and never seeing shelves, it won't be long before video game stores only sell used games and places like Best Buy and Target won't even sell them anymore--more likely they'll sell gift cards you can use to purchase the DLC much in the same way they sell cards for iTunes.

I'm just tired of feeling like I'm being punished because of where I live. When we lived in town we had high-speed internet, but not out here in the boonies. Though we get phone calls and mailers telling us we can get AT&T or Charter cable internet, when we call them about it they say it isn't available, and that there are no plans to make it so anytime soon. It isn't bad enough that I'm already treated like an outsider because I don't go online and run around digital mazes, shooting at other players (or, more likely, being shot again and again and again) for hours on end, but now I'm being denied the chance to even play a game that I really want to. So the best thing to do is just shrug my shoulders.

It may not be fair, but it's the future.

Superheroes: More American Jobs Lost to Outsourcing

Whenever there is a big-budget superhero film in the works there is always an electric buzz of anticipation surrounding who will be cast in the title role. But lately there has been a disturbing trend involving our beloved American warriors on screen: the actors aren't American. The most recent victim has been Superman, the hero who fights for truth, justice, and . . . her Royal Highness? Yup. Henry Cavill, who plays Clark Kent/Superman in the upcoming Man of Steel, was born on the small island of Jersey in the English Channel between Great Britain and France.

Another recent addition to Her Majesty's forces of good was Andrew Garfield, who nabbed the top spot in next summer's The Amazing Spider-Man. Oh, sure, you could argue that he was born in the U.S. and moved to England when he was four, but that doesn't count. Duel citizenship only goes so far as the accent, buddy. And he's quite proud of his nationality. And that's fine. I don't blame him, anyway.

Another of the big names fighting crime under the Union Jack is King Turd on the Guano Pile himself, Christian Bale from the over-appreciated, over-exposed, and heavily-defended The Dark Knight. It is well known that Bale heavily researches his roles (they call it method acting), even going so far as to study accents from around the world to accurately depict the people he's portraying. He takes it a step further and uses that accent when doing press junkets and television appearances, to keep the audience with him and not alarm them. Bravo to him for being that hard of a worker.

Hugh Jackman as the grumbling, easily-angered Logan from Wolverine and the X-Men films is an Aussie (okay, so Wolvie is actually Canadian, but he's badass enough to let it slide).

Famke Jensen as Jean Gray in the X-Men films is from Holland.

Eric Bana from the first Hulk film (though some would say it was a disaster), another Aussie.

Ioan Gruffudd from "America's first family of heroes" The Fantastic Four, another Brit.

You know, at this point, I should probably stipulate that I'm all for hiring the right actor for the job, and it doesn't bother me who plays the part as long as they play it right and from the heart. It has just been something that I've picked up on of late. I don't know if Britain is just churning out better actors, or if the directors (many of whom are also from other countries) are looking for actors with passports, because a lot of these movies are filmed in Australia, New Zealand, or England because of the lower costs to work there--something else this country needs to work on to increase revenue.

It doesn't really matter because we still have Robert Downey Jr. (oh, wait, he's starring as the iconic British detective Sherlock Holmes--haha! Take that, you Limey bastards!)

An Open Letter to Food Network

Dear Food Network,

I have watched your programming for more almost two decades now and I have finally reached my breaking point. For too long your "celebrity" chefs have gone out of their way to create dishes that are neither new nor exciting, instead relying on special ingredients to "enhance" flavor. But the fatal flaw in nearly all of the cooking shows you produce is your lack of consideration for the majority of your viewers, relying more on expensive and hard to find items to make the cooks feel special and seem more cultured than the rest of us.

First, I want to address how the Food Network kitchens do not concern themselves with the fact that there are people who watch their show who live in the Midwest, some in small, rural areas. When I watch a chef talk about the ingredients they use, I am impressed with how they can make them sound desirable. Yet there is no way that I can procure these items as some of them are just to exotic (pickled pineapple leaves? Really?). I often hear them tell me that the item can be found at most "megamarts." Well, Food Network, I'm here to tell you that it cannot. I have searched high and low for things like fresh lemongrass in my town and it just doesn't exist. Now, this usually only relates to those specialty items that go into whatever it is that the chef is making, but it usually those specialty items that make the dish sound appealing in the first place. Which leads me into my second point.

If, on the rare occasion, I can find that secret ingredient, I am usually let down that it costs some kind of exuberant amount of money--especially for the amount the dish calls for. This often leads to me buy the item, use a small amount, then let it rot in the fridge until I toss it out, because I'm not about to go looking for recipes that call for that ingredient to have every night of the week until I get my money's worth. It's called variety. Now, I know that you have all kinds of money to toss around, and that your test kitchens and studios are located above one of New York City's premiere markets where you can procure just about anything at any time. But I live in the middle of Farm Country, USA, and I can't just pop over to the store and get just a little bit of anything. Going to the store around here is a day-long event where all the weekly necessities are purchased in one stop.

I also think that you should be more responsible when it comes to balancing cost and diet. It seems to me that your shows that are devoted to eating healthy, again, fail to consider that many Americans cannot afford to eat natural, organic foods. For instance, I just watched a show where one of your cooks devoted the whole episode to healthy substitutes for common snack foods. I was more than a bit curious. However, when this person went to the grocery store to give me some simple ideas to cut fat and calories, I was shocked at her suggestions. Not because I didn't agree with the choices, or thought that they were giving me bad information, but rather because they seemed to assume that money was no object. A prime example of this came in the form of the suggested milk substitute. They offered up almond milk in exchange for skim milk. And while I agree that almond milk contains less fat per serving than skim milk, it also costs a lot more--at least around here. A gallon of milk costs between $2.75 and $3.50. A quart of almond milk checks in around $4.00. So a gallon of almond milk costs $16.00. At the end of the cook's segment, they proclaimed that, with a shopping cart full of healthy foods, they had saved me, the viewer, almost 2000 calories. Yes, but you just upped my weekly grocery bill by about $300! And that is just irresponsible! And yes, I could go on and on about how unfair it is that food manufacturers are responsible for the high cost of health foods, not you. I've seen it for myself in that two similar foods are placed next to each other; one is a healthy option--however when you look at the details, there is actually less of the healthy product in the packaging, and they are charging you a much higher price. Basically, more for less. I could also rant about how they complain that it costs them more to make the healthy stuff. But I won't.

One way that I have thought up to elevate some of this anger and disillusion is for the cooks in the test kitchens to be thoughtful to the plight of the 9.2% of Americans who are unemployed, and come up with alternate ingredients. If I can't find candied plums, what else can I use? Or let's say that my local megamart doesn't carry West African Tanta root. Is there an alternative? I have passed on so many recipes that actually sounded good because I know for a fact that I can't get the stuff to make it.

I think that it would be a real nice thing if you could somehow stop the over-use of these high-priced, hard to find ingredients. Not everyone can just stop by the Wal-Mart on their way home from work and pick up lobster stock--let alone afford the lobsters to make their own. So I'm begging you to please be considerate to your viewers who have no money and live in the middle of nowhere. We're not all stupid rednecks who think that gourmet cuisine comes from that there Fazoli's. Like you, I want to make great-tasting food at home for my family to enjoy.

It is up to you to start controlling your chefs by paying attention to what they make and what they use to make it. Take a second and think: Can farmer Bob get his hands on this ingredient? If not, what can we use that is readily available almost everywhere?

Thank you.

P.S. Oh, and one other thing: get rid of Bobby Flay. There are only so many different ways to prepare a cheesesteak or steak and eggs, and he has done them all ten times over--who cares if he created a new pepper sauce to go over it? The man lost so many of his throw-downs that he threatened to quit the show, until you stepped in and (I'm assuming) bought his victories. I mean, come on, the man used the words "crusty nut sludge" when describing the perfect chocolate chip cookie . . . then proceeded to put hot pepper powder in the cookie dough. Two words: cattle prod! 'Nuff said.

Movie Review: Laid to Rest

Title: Laid to Rest
Genre: Horror/Slasher
Written and directed by: Robert Hall
Grade: D
Best Death: Tire inflation goo used to fill up the guy's head through the ear.
Worst Death: Knife to the chest.
Effects: A+ (they were practical, not digital; used foam latex and corn syrup)

I almost turned this movie off after the first ten minutes. But I muddled through and got to the end, and I'm glad I did, because in all, this is a good, solid C+ horror/slasher flick (thought I'm pretty much going to demolish this movie in this review). Yet the first little bit was one of the worst I've seen.  Here's a breakdown of the opening scenes:

- Flashy, ADD montage with lots of shots of different kinds of blades and some POV camera images of crying girls all set to annoying techno music over the credits.

- A young woman wakes up in a coffin, she panics and starts thrashing around.

- Woman escapes by knocking coffin over and breaking it open and proceeds to wander around funeral home trying to open doors, but not very hard (seriously, she just jiggles the handle, cries, then moves on--how about trying the deadbolt?)

- Woman finds a phone in the embalming room and dials 9-1-1 (there is actually a Post-It on the wall that instructs her to do so in an emergency); she says that she was "in a box" at "the dead people place." Operator tells her to stay on the line for 30 seconds so they can run a trace; but girl sees body in storage drawer and walks over to it like she's in a trance, pulling the phone cord out (actually, the cord breaks with the jack still in the phone, so the connection isn't really broken and the trace should have completed and the cops should have shown up--thus no movie!!).

- Woman sees killer and panics; old man appears and tries to unlock door, but he fumbles with his key chain and the dozens of keys he has--killer gets him!

- Woman escapes after injuring killer and is picked up by a stranger. She tells him she can't remember anything, only that she was "in a box" at the "place with the bodies"--which naturally leads the stranger to believe she's come from . . . a cemetery?

After the first ten minutes, I retitled this movie You Stupid Bitch. There were so many opportunities for her to escape, but she never does, instead relying on her weakness and the help of others (but more on that a little later).

From the moment the stranger picks her up, this actually gets kind of watchable. The stranger is a really cool, mid-40s bald guy. He's a bit of a redneck, but nice enough to take the woman back to his house to see if he and his wife can help her. Now, I'm not going to go through the entire plot here. It is long and doesn't make sense most of the time, so I'll just hit on some of my observances.

This is the story of a young woman and her attempt at escape from a killer who wears a mask that is a chrome skull and wears a small video camera on his shoulder to document his actions.

For one thing, I understand that this is a small town somewhere in Georgia, but NO ONE has a phone! Of the two people the young woman meets, neither has a phone--but one does have the Internet.  Which leads me to another issue. After the killer takes out the bald guy's wife, they drive off and come across a house, wherein lives a late-20s nerdy guy who's mother just passed away (the body the young woman saw in the funeral home). The nerdy guy uses the Internet, which the bald guy thinks is some kind of magic--he honestly has no idea what it is or that it can be used to look up information.

In another scene, the trio of the woman, bald guy, and nerd go to the police station (this is after sending an e-mail to 9-1-1--yup, they sent an emergency e-mail!) for help. Upon entering, the bald guy calls out for the sheriff, and when he gets no answer he kicks open the metal cage door that leads into the station--after just calling out once. What if the sheriff was pooping? Some one's a little too gungho. Well, naturally, the killer is there waiting on them, having taken out the police, right? Of course. So he attacks them an they escape and drive away . . . leading to the funeral home where the girl makes them stop because she says it might help her remember. So now (with the funeral home doors now unlocked) they go inside. But wait, the killer has somehow beaten them there (and don't think that this is one of those movies where there are two killer posing as one--it isn't).

That is just the first third of the film. At this point, our victimized heroine suddenly grows a pair and gets all brave when she sees the killer moving about an old barn next to the funeral home, stating that is now time some one took something from him for all that he's taken from others. She investigates, after being told not to, and is again, taken by the killer *sigh*. Again she's rescued by the bald guy who went home to get a gun; he shoot the killer a few times and they escape in the killer's Chrysler 300--nice car.

This movie also features the "floating issue" of fuel (a floating issue is a story element that pops up again and again and has really no effect on the story itself). When the bald guy picks up the woman, he asks if she's out of gas, and tells her that he doesn't have much. Later, they take the nerd's car, and it is specifically mentioned that he only has 1/8 of a tank. The killer's car has a full tank. This is what I mean by a floating issue. Also, there is an issue with camera batteries that comes up later, which suddenly transforms into video tape instead as the batteries magically recharge.

Anyway, the girl steals the killer's car while the bald guy and nerd are back at the nerd's house checking the emergency e-mail (the response is that they should CALL 9-1-1 if there is a real emergency). She drives to a small gas station (there's that fuel thing again), but the killer uses his remote GPS system to lock her in and make her do what he wants--which is get more video tape (this after the batteries in the video camera died and were reborn anew). She goes inside, takes too long, and the killer strikes. Her friends show up to rescue her. Unfortunately, the bald guy must be nearsighted because he could hit the guy from fifteen feet away in the barn, but misses blindly from about five feet.

To top the whole thing off--and to eventually lead to a final showdown between the woman and the killer--the bald guy attacks the killer in order to give the woman time to escape. But instead of running, she collapses on the floor and cries. For his heroic efforts, the bald guy gets a knife in the chest. The woman isn't even the one who kills the killer. The nerd set a lame trap for the guy and that's what gets him. So even in victory she's lame, but she does get a parting shot at his head with baseball bat after he's already dead. What a warrior she is.

Okay, so if that wasn't bad enough, there were a few lines of dialogue that made me roll my eyes. Here is a breakdown of how the woman speaks through most of the movie--I'm assuming she's supposed to be having memory trouble due to drugs, but it isn't really addressed. She refers to a casket as a box. She calls the funeral home the place with dead people or the dead body place (or some variation). At one point she tells the nerd that the killer wants to "make me dead." And a tire iron is called a tire stick.

The only real thing that kept this movie from getting an F was how great the effects were. The killer mostly used a customized Bowie knife, so there was plenty of close-up shots of grisly mutilations.

I only saw this because it was on one of the Encore movie channels and I didn't have to pay to watch it. I still kind of want my money back though.

My Favorite TV Shows (Currently Running): Part Two

In continuing with yesterday's trend . . . in no particular order:

30 Rock (NBC). Trying to describe this show to someone who hasn't seen it is like trying to describe the beauty of some one's face using only their hand for reference. Alec Baldwin has finally embraced his comedic talents that he used to flaunt so wonderfully on Saturday Night Live; it also helps that he's now kinda fat and old, so no more action movies with ex-wife Kim Bassinger. Tina Fey makes me fall in love with poor Liz Lemon every episode, mainly for her archaic 1980s pop culture references. And unlike other shows (both animated and live-action) that use cut-away gags for laughs, 30 Rock uses them correctly, that is to say briefly. Their cut-aways last no more than twenty or so seconds, and when your show is only twenty-two minutes long, seconds count. But the show's greatest achievement was this past season's live episode.

Community (NBC). When I first heard about this show, I had two thoughts. I figured it was going to be either the worst thing on television, or the funniest thing I'd ever seen. Luckily for me, and every one else, it was the latter. I really gave this show a chance because of my devotion to Joel McHale on The Soup (E!), but I am now grateful for the chance to have been introduced to Donald Glover, who plays Troy. Apparently the guy is a comic busy-bee, doing everything from stand-up, to hilarious raps, and even putting on a campaign to play Peter Parker in the new Spider-Man movie that will be out next year (he did not get the part). But like so many other shows on my list, it is the ensemble cast that makes this show work. Without all of them sitting around the study table in the library, the balance would be tilted and dull. It's also good to see Chevy Chase back in comedy where he's actually funny. Another highlight is the girls, for those of you into that sort of thing. First there's Gillian Jacobs who plays Britta, cast as the hot one, but isn't. And there's Alison Brie, the hot one cast as the one who isn't. To see what I mean, check this out.

Parks & Rec. (NBC). The third of the NBC Thursday night lineup to make this list. When I first hear they were doing a spin-off of The Office, I cringed. Then I saw Parks & Rec. and I laughed until I cried. Amy Poehler is at her comedic best, even if they spent most of last season trying to hide her pregnancy, as Leslie Knope, the well-intentioned, hard-working second-in-command (but really the head) of the Parks Department for the fictional Pawnee, Indiana. Again, it is the supporting cast of soon-to-be-superstar Aziz Ansari, Nick Offerman, Chris Pratt, and Aubrey Plaza that ease this show along. Another thing that makes this show watchable is how quotable it is. There is at least one line per episode that should be used as a Facebook status update.

Psych (USA). A fake psychic and his best friend hang out in Santa Barbra, CA and solve murders. This is another one of those rare shows where the humor and drama balance out nicely. The truly great part of this show is that James Roday and Dule Hill make you want to hang out with their characters Shawn and Gus. They'd be awesome to go to the taco stand with, as long as you're buying, because on the way you'll probably get sucked into some horrible crime where you life will probably be on the line. This was another one of those shows that I had to be talked into watching, and now I'm glad I listened. It's far from perfect, but it has all the 80s and 90s references you could want, and some great one-liners.

Rake (Audience). I'm guessing that most of you don't know anything about this show because it airs on a Direct TV-only station--and because it's Australian. Here's the gist: it's about a hard-living lawyer in New South Wales, Australia. He does drugs, drinks gallons, and sleeps with just about every broad he can come across, all while defending the most detestable lot of clients he can come across. It's vulgar and coarse and I love it. Just as a taste, the first episode featured Hugo Weaving (The Matrix, Lord of the Rings Trilogy) as a cannibalistic economics professor. And yes, it was awesome.

Being Human (BBC America). A vampire, a werewolf, and a ghost . . . stop me if you've heard this one . . . This is seriously one of the best TV concepts that's come around in the last decade or so.  Here's this trio of supernatural beings trying to live a normal, human life. Like that's ever going to work. The first season was light-hearted with some darker spots, as we learned a little more about the characters and how they interacted with one another. The second season went darker, but retained some of that humor that made them "human." And the third season went balls-to-the-wall dark, but not in the horror kind of way, more in the Seven kind of way. There's George, the squeaky-voiced, child-like werewolf who is quickly growing up; Mitchell, the sociopath vampire who's just trying to survive; and Annie, the ghost who loves everybody. I don't think this show would work if you removed any of the elements, because it is about people who have no family trying to live like one and the hardships they deal with. Oh, and you can see an American version on SyFy network, but it isn't as good and seems to be vampire-focused--imagine that.

Dr. Who (BBC America). The longest running sci-fi show on television (though there have been large gaps at times) has been on since the 1950s. I'm not going to spend hours relating all the information about this show, you can check wikipedia for that information. The truth is that this show didn't really pick up a ton of steam until 2005, when Stephen Moffat redesigned it for the new millennium and it was rebroadcast in the U.S. on the Sci-Fi network on Friday nights. After the departure of David Tennant as the title character, Matt Smith took over. Personally, I like Matt as the Doctor. The newer season (in which I actually cried during the season finale), was powerful and well-done. The Smith episodes continue with the darker themes presented in the final Tennant shows where the Doctor was alone and a little depressed. But then the next Doctor picked up Amy Pond, played by the too-damn-cute Karen Gillan, and was off on new adventures. While most of the show retains the original lightheartedness of the other Doctors, the newer episodes are much darker, I think reflecting the slow degeneration of the Doctor's psyche as he gets older and contemplates all that he has seen and done. I don't think we'll lose the Doctor any time soon--besides, how do you kill a character that can regenerate his physiology while dying as a form of preservation?

My Favorite TV Shows (Currently Running): Part One

Recently I did a countdown of my favorite shows that were cancelled too soon. It was sad and depressing going back and remembering the great losses I have suffered, so I decided that I would come up with a list of my favorite show that are still on the air--but I'm not ranking them, because each one holds a special place in my heart, not to be measured with another.

Anyway . . .

Futurama (Comedy Central). Like the "sweet zombie Jesus" that Adult Swim used to bleep out (but Comedy Central leaves in), this show came back from the dead with a fury. It took four independently produced movies (Bender's Big Score, The Beast with a Billion Backs, Bender's Game, and Into the Wild Green Yonder) to get anyone to pay attention, but it worked. Audiences saw that the writing was still great, and executives saw that there was still money to be made. So Comedy Central aired all of the movies in half-hour increments as the first "new" season. Now they're back on a regular airing schedule and I couldn't be happier. What's better, is that they never lost any of the original cast. If things keep going well, Futurama could very well be the next South Park, but for nerds, not hipsters (did I just zing South Park?).

Franklin & Bash (TNT). It's good to see Zack Morris all grown up. No, I don't mean the actor. The character of Peter Bash is exactly how I imagined the character of Zack to be in 2011. But all that aside, it is a great show. It's like Psych meets Law & Order. There's plenty of humor and drama, both. It just wrapped its first season on TNT last night and I was honestly impressed. The writers didn't go for a lame cliff-hanger ending, and polished off the episode's troubles in the full hour. My only gripe about the show is that season one only ran ten episodes. I will be eagerly awaiting the return of this show because TNT renewed it just last week! Hooray. Are you paying attention, FOX?

White Collar (USA). This show is smart and cute. Yes, I said cute. The dynamic between Peter Burke and Neal Caffrey is something that isn't seem much in television today. They are complete opposites, that find common ground and have built a friendship around that little parcel of land. The supporting characters do more than support--and in the current season they've paid particular attention to each one of the supporting characters by giving them their own episode to shine. Not that this show is totally perfect. Neal is clever and smart, but he seems to know everything--like in an episode of Knight Rider where they give KITT a new feature, just to test, and, sure enough that little gizmo is the key to saving the day in the end. Also, as a poor person, I'm starting to get a little tired of all the glitz and glam the show depicts. Apparently, in New York City, everything is clean and shiny and everyone can afford bagels and coffee three times a day. I would like to see someone who drives a car that is more than five years old--and I know that Ford sponsors the show, but still . . .

The Closer (TNT). I'll admit that I never watched this show when it first came on several years ago. Honestly, I didn't like Kyra Sedgwick, and I still don't. She looks like she's in her 60s, regardless of how many makeovers they give her, and she's too skinny. But I love Brenda Johnson, her character. However, it is really the supporting characters that make up this show! Lieutenants Tao, Flynn and Provenza, Detectives Gabriel and Sanchez, and Commander Taylor and Chief Pope are really to thank for the success of the show. The writers do an excellent job of weaving the stories so that it isn't Chief Johnson who come up with the winning idea every time. She relies on her team, and goes to bat for them constantly. This show really goes beyond the typical police drama and captures the family unit that makes up a tight-knit group of people who work together.

Haven (SyFy). I started watching this show last summer because it was "based on" a work by Stephen King. Then I read the book this show is based on. I'm still watching the show, but it has very little to do with the book. The show focuses on supernatural happenings call "the troubles," while the book--which I read in a single sitting--is a simple mystery story that is never actually solved. I like the show because of all the crazy stuff that happens, and because I have a little fan-crush on Emily Rose, who plays female lead, Audry Parker. The setup is a Kingesque style of a small town in Maine where bizarre thing take place, and each episode centers around one particular incident. However, this show has fallen victim to the cliche that so many have in that there is usually a season-underlying event going on that you have to keep watching to get all the pieces. Though when the season ends, there are still more pieces and the puzzle isn't even close to done. I'm afraid this show will get the ax and leave so many questions unanswered. But while it's on, I love it.

Warehouse 13 (SyFy). I was super-excited about the premise of this show when it first started, and I still really like it, though the current season is starting off a little weak. The first season was highlighted by the two characters of Pete and Myka going around looking for crazy objects with supernatural powers, usually once owned by someone historically famous person. Near the end of season one they introduced Claudia (played by the near-scorching hot Allison Scagliotti), as a teenage tech-wizard who played around with and enhanced may of the outdated Warehouse systems. The trouble with this show, like many others, is the underlying, season-long story arcs. First it was Artie's former partner and his madness, then it was the escape of female H.G. Wells (yup, apparently Wells was really a woman in this universe). None of these shows have really been bad. They're a little bit like Dr. Who meets the History Channel. Obviously some are better than others, but in all, I'd like to see this show keep going for at least another two seasons.

Well, that's part one. Hope I inspired you to tune into some new shows, or look them up on Netflix or some unnamed website that hosts them in some fashion (I don't condone piracy in any form *wink wink*).

First Facebook Impressions

Every so often, I get a random Facebook request from someone I don't know. Hey, no problem, that's how you make new friends and acquaintances. But in this style of society, it is totally cool to judge a book by its cover, or profile picture--that isn't to say it isn't fun to psychoanalyze them anyway. So here's a fun little jumble of my all-time, most-detested profile pictures that have been in my request box the last few weeks (these aren't in any real order). NOTE: THIS ENTRY DOES NOT PERTAIN TO PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY MY FRIEND ON FACEBOOK, just strangers who are trying to boost their friend numbers.

A picture that isn't of the person. I've received friend requests from all sorts of fun things. Based on the idea that the picture is of the profile owner, I've had requests from cars and motorcycles, marijuana leaves, infants, recognizable celebrities with different names (yes, Robert Pattinson wanted to be my friend using the name Jenny XXXXX), beer cans and liquor bottles, and company logos. Honestly, if I don't already know you, I'm not going to be your friend anyway, but using a pot leaf as your profile picture is just asking for the police to come knocking on your door with probable cause. Also, unless you're a tricked-out 1982 Pontiac Trans Am with a witty AI, I'm not friending a car! And here's the part that really drives me nuts: a lot of these people have their profiles set to super secret, so that even if I wanted to know who they were, I couldn't. Not unless I become their friend first. Now, I just went through my friends list (I only have 80, so it didn't take long), and only 13.75% are not using a picture of themselves. Don't get me wrong, I quite frequently use an image of something other than myself--just recently it was the Ecto 1 designed in the style of CARS, but I usually try and find something that just screams "ME," so that if you look at it, you know right away who you're talking to. If you're already my friend, I don't really care what your profile picture is, because I know who you are. But if you're someone I don't know very well, then don't make me guess.

Silly faces. Oh, how sweet. You've got your eyes crossed, your tongue lolled to one side, and your finger up your nose. Will I be your friend? Yes, please! There's nothing I like more than a person with such self-assurance that they can make fun of themselves in a public forum. And the crazier and more outlandish the better. I love people who are the life of the party. So thank you for being my friend. WAIT A MINUTE! Now that we're friends, I can see your profile, and it says that you love everything that I hate, and that you are of a different background than me, and that you are, in actuality, a stuck-up prude! Gah! Your silly face tricked me into thinking that you were an outgoing person and lots of fun. I feel so defrauded. Unfriend.

The duck face. Oh, yeah, I had to have a separate section just for this ridiculous little gem. Girls, what the hell? Where did this come from, why is it popular, and, are you serious? Sticking your lips out, and trying to flatten them into some kind of deformed pout makes you look silly, not attractive. You look like you just got stung by a bee...or that someone gave you pee instead of lemonade. I really didn't mind when you were all using the kissy-face. It was at least kind of endearing. Oh, and by the way, guys are now doing this. Yup. These jerkoffs who buy Jersey Shore on DVD are now posing in self portraits with their shirts lifted up to expose their "abs" and sporting the duck face. Somewhere, Daffy and Donald have come together over their differences to rally against this.

Gang signs. Are these really still around? And does someone from Minnesota really need to be representin' the East or West side? You're not bad, you're not scary, and you're twelve.

Groups. I'm not interested in playing detective. Which one are you? There's nine people in this picture and one of them wants to be my friend. Use MS Paint and circle yourself, or draw an arrow or something.

Middle fingers. Fuck you, too. You're such a nice person, flipping me off in your profile picture, why wouldn't I want to be your friend. First impressions, yo.

Once again, I cannot stress enough that if you are already my Facebook friend, then this doesn't apply to you. But you might want to keep this in mind if you're trolling for an ex or that cute member of the opposite sex (or same sex; I don't judge) you met at the bar last week. I'm just here to help.

Dracula Twists That Won't Die!

I just finished reading a collection of short stories involving the literary character, Dracula. The one thing that stuck out in my head after I was done was how the plot twists that were supposed to be shocking and brilliant were lame, old, and cliche. So I jotted down a few notes and thought I'd share some of the more over-done ideas. (Keep in mind this book was originally published in the early 1990s--probably around the time of Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula.) While I pulled the general ideas from this anthology, I really am talking about the Dracula mythos as a whole, including books, films, and other forms a media.

Of all of the motifs used, the most prevalent was the link between Stoker's character and the actual man who ruled Wallachia during the mid-15th Century. So many of the stories tried to mix both men, some succeeding more than others. But I think this idea has been done to undeath. It has been well-documented that Stoker came across the name Dracula in his studies of Easter European vampire tales, liked it, and slapped it on his creation. He had never actually studied Vlad the Impaler, because if he had, his novel would have been much different. Anyway, this idea that the shadow dressed in a opera cape who swooped in on London in the late 19th Century is the same Dracula is ridiculous. Here's the biggest reason: in the novel, Dracula is a count; the real Dracula was a prince. I doubt that he would lower his station in life--especially given the kind of man he was.

Another commonly used story element is the notion that the events in Stoker's novel really took place, and that the author disguised the actual names and places of those involved. In these kind of stories there is also a subcategory involving two common ideas: 1) Stoker was involved in the actions--usually as the Van Helsing character, and 2) one of the real participants told the story to him--usually Van Helsing, Jonathan Harker, or the Count himself--which usually causes problems among the other members of the clandestine group who were involved. The problem with this idea is that among all the stories devoted to it, none really stand out as genius--because after so many, they all start bleeding together and it is nearly impossible to tell one from another. However, an anthology that collects all of these might be interesting (I know, it sounds like a contradiction to my previous statement, but having them all next to each other would make it easier to tell them apart).

The third most-used theme of Dracula is the simple rearranging of the letters of his name to try and convince the reader he's someone else, and then, surprise, the reveal that the character is really the dreaded Count is as flat as an open, two-day old ginger ale. Whether it's Alucard, Cardula, La Druca, La Curda or Dr. Acula, when you've read the name as many times as it has been printed, your brain starts to put the letters together in the right order the first time you see them in some psychological phenomenon. In reality, the gag is best suited for films where the character's name is spoken, not shown as it can be said quickly to disguise the lame attempt at concealment.

Well, those are the top of the list. There's a few others that are used frequently, but not to such a degree. If you can think of a few more, leave them in the "Comments" section for discussion.

The Horror of Humor

I'm stuck. And being stuck has given me time to think. What I've thought about is the fact that I'm far too serious in my writing. I don't mean that I'm sitting at a type writer, pipe hanging out of the corner of my mouth while Mozart blasts from my speakers, trying to compose the perfect piece of fiction. I mean that I find it difficult to write humorous situations. Everything I compose is stuffy and hard-nosed.

I'm trying to write a story to submit to an upcoming anthology. Part of the guidelines stipulate that there has to be "humor sprinkled in." Heaven help me, but I don't know what that means. My style of humor differs from others (I consider myself witty, but not hilarious). But I know what's funny. I know that when I watch a comedy I can instantly tell if I'll like it based on the type of humor used. For instance, I found Waiting... to be a far funnier film than The Hangover because the situations in Waiting were honest and real. I'm not a huge fan of ridiculous situations that continue to compound for an hour and a half, but there are some, like Idiocracy that are just damn good.

And there's the trouble. I want to write a serious story dealing with a serious situation, but what I consider humorous is much more tongue-in-cheek, a kind of commentary, than opposed to one silly thing happening after another. I want my story to carry a message. I've read and reread and re-reread the guidelines. They clearly stipulate that the story should not be intended as one big joke, and that it should not bowl someone over with laughter. I'm just not sure that my brand of humor is clearly coming through.

I'm on my fifth draft and when I read it, I try and be objective, putting myself in the shoes of an editor. As I go through it, the things I thought were sly might come across as too serious. Confusing, even. Again, I'm avoiding the knee-slapping humor--I couldn't write it if I tried anyway--but what I'm using might be the wrong thing. Unfortunately, given the story I'm trying to tell, I can't change too much more without having to write a completely different story.

Now, I know what you're saying: Well, if that's what you have to do, then do it. But I'm stubborn. I really want to make this story work. The title and premise work to my advantage, but the overall content fails to do what I intended. Luckily, the deadline isn't until the end of December, so I've got time. But school is starting in a few weeks and I'm going to be bogged down. I'm about to put this story in the drawer for a bit, maybe come back to it a little later. The only trouble is that I've invested so much time in it at this point that my brain is tightly wrapped around it.