The 1st Annual MUPOS Award

In Hollywood, it's that time of year again: awards season. And because there can never be enough awards, I've decided to throw my hat into the ring and create a new one, The MUPOS.

Trophy Prototype

The MUPOS (moop-OSE), or "Most Unwatchable Piece of Shit," will be bestowed upon a film that meets the following criteria:

- causes abrupt intervals of bewildered expressions, head-shaking, and/or obscenity-laced muttering to oneself upon being viewed.

- its acting, direction and editing can all be called into question.

And most importantly...

- wondering why, or how, it ever got made sends the viewer (me) into a rage.

***

This year's winner meets all the parameters in spades. Drumroll please....



SPRING BREAKERS!!!


This movie accomplishes something that is at once entirely unique and yet in no way commendable: it is the first film ever to not contain a single scene*.

Instead, the filmmakers opted to string-together various conversations with various montage B-roll. That's not a movie, it's the world's first 94 minute transition. And the 2013 MUPOS!

* filmed footage containing conflict, adversarial motivations, and, ideally, some kind of reveal.


RETROACTIVE WINNERS:

(2009) The Lovely Bones  A tonal ratatouille of "what the hell am I watching?"

(2010) Somewhere  "How is this scene still going on?" devolved into "How did she not yell 'cut' already?"

(2011) The Tree of Life  An experimental cop-out that could've cut any 45 minutes at random and achieved the same thing.

(2012) Battleship  Expectations were pretty damn low, and it still didn't meet them. Hard to think of another film as inept in every element of its assembly.

Django is Djunk

Quentin Tarantino's acceptance speech at this year's Oscars vindicated me. For years I've been saying that he's not the genius he's been made out to be, and anyone watching his bumbling attempt at humility would agree with me, if they were being honest with themselves. The way I feel about Tarantino is kind of like Salieri's view of Mozart in AMADEUS, except I don't perceive QT to be especially talented, so I've nothing of which to be jealous. Why I seem to be virtually alone in this assertation is beyond me.

I'm the only person I know who didn't like DJANGO UNCHAINED. It didn't start out that way; I actually enjoyed much of the first act. I would even argue that Christoph Waltz was more than a deserving Academy Award recipient for his portrayal of Dr. King Schultz. But as the film went on, it just wore me out. Running out of sources to derive from, Tarantino finally became derivative of himself. DJANGO is Tarantino trying to make a Tarantino movie.

Everyone talks about his movies as if there's this depth to them, but I see them as unprecedented in their superficiality. The word "homage" is tossed around haphazardly in regards to Tarantino, but, to me, an homage denotes a subtle influence; a wink or nod to a genre or director. This is not what's happening. Tarantino's films contain what he perceives to be homages, which are very different. Maybe it's because nothing with him is subtle, it's all at the surface, but whatever you want to call what it is he's doing, "homage" is a misnomer.

His filmmaking is lazy, never more apparently so in DJANGO. The best example of this is an interstitial, a title sequence of Jamie Foxx's Django & King Schultz trotting on horses in front of spectacular backdrops. Their journey, and a time lapse, is explained to us in a series of titles so that the adventure may continue… only this device is never used again. Basically, in lieu of concocting an interesting transition, he explained it to us, only it was completely irrelevant to the rest of the film's composition. See, someone truly paying homage would've featured multiple such transitions. This is merely a QT-perceived homage.

Another prime example of his laziness in storytelling is ironically also the best part of the entire film: Dr. King Schultz. With Schultz, Tarantino commits not the biggest, but certainly oldest dramatic transgression by employing the Deus ex machina. Basically the story is set into motion not by a reasonable series of events, but by Schultz stumbling upon the slave-traders transporting Django in the middle of the woods. Our two leads are brought together, put in the same place, somehow, without any plausible motivation for it.

Even deconstructing the plot takes little effort; our protagonist's motivation goes no lower than the surface. Django's goal is to rescue his wife. There's nothing wrong with this, primal urges certainly resonate onscreen, but couldn't it also be more nuanced than that? As we see it in the film, it's nothing more than a caveman-motivation: They took wife. Must get back wife. This is because QT's characters are caricatures. Sure they have unique ways of speaking and a backstory, but really their main duty is to look and sound cool while delivering their lines. That's as deep as he goes.

DJANGO UNCHAINED is inarguably an exploitation film. If you were wondering what exactly is being exploited, the answer is simple: slavery. I'm not accusing Tarantino of any racist intentions, but I don't think he made a movie devoid of racism. As far as I can tell, the primary purpose of slavery within the confines of DJANGO is to make its villains unlikeable. The film's heroes may not have boy scout resumes, but they're wonderful by comparison. 

All the atrocities of slavery depicted were sensationalized, heightened. Who could forget the brutal "Mandingo Fights," battles to the death between male slaves for plantation owners' entertainment. But guess what? They didn't even really happen. This is exploitation at its worst: exacerbating a sensitive subject to elicit an emotional response. Joke's on us, the audience, because we reacted to something artificial. But who are we kidding? It's not like Tarantino ever really had anything to add about slavery anyway. Much like Django's motivations, the movie's message about slavery is a caveman one: Slavery bad.

Easily the most despicable character in the movie is Samuel L. Jackson's Stephen, a slave with Stockholm Syndrome who inexplicably favors his white masters over his own kind. I don't doubt there were slaves like Stephen, but I would've appreciated some insight into why his character was that way. But of course we don't get any of that; we're forced to blindly accept that he's just a mean old man with screwed up allegiances. To me, Stephen ends up serving as a means to mitigate blame for slavery; it wasn't just whites, the blacks were responsible too. I don't' think this was Tarantino's intention, but it's most certainly his fault.

Before making an exploitation film, a simple question needs to be answered: is the material ripe for exploitation? I just don't think slavery is, especially after seeing DJANGO. Racism is a delicate subject in that if you're not helping the situation, you're hurting. While I don't think DJANGO is anywhere near BIRTH OF A NATION territory, it plain and simply does not help with the situation. It may not be overt racism, but, whether intentional or not, that doesn't mean it isn't racially subversive.

On a buddy's recommendation, I downloaded and starting reading DJANGO UNCHAINED's screenplay. "Check out his style," he said. "It's very unique." The grammatical sloppiness and misplaced apostrophes aside, there was something curious on the page: he used the word "nigger" multiple times in the scene description. Not only in dialogue, but in describing the actions. This is not a character saying it, this is Quentin using it as a noun, and not ironically or in quotes either. I view this as an insight into Tarantino's psyche. It's no accident that word found its way where it did, and I think he believes it's cool to use "nigger," that it gives him cache. Whatever the reason, his fascination with it isn't kosher.

It's gotten to the point that my feelings towards DJANGO have tainted Tarantino's previous films that I actually used to enjoy. It took me several films, but now I realize how flimsy the construction of his stories really are. Even PULP FICTION, which was one of my favorite movies when I first saw it, is disappointing in retrospect. I honestly doubt I'll ever see it again. This is because Quentin Tarantino is not a genius, but a fool in genius' clothing.

On one hand, it kind of sucks, but on the other, it kind of feels good to know I value substance over style.

My Open Letter to Yankee Fans

I admit this is the rant of a biased, bitter, cantankerous Mets fan. But Yankee fans, you still need to hear this:

There's nothing wrong with you rooting for your team and being happy when they win. But you don't deserve to be upset when they lose, nor particularly hungry for any more championships. Why? Because there's not a Yankee fan alive who isn't completely set already if the team fails to claim another World Series for the rest of his or her life. So I insist: cheer, be happy. If they win again, it's nice, like using a 20% off coupon at Bed Bath & Beyond; but certainly nothing to get worked up over. If they lose: shrug, mope for ten seconds, then try to decide which of your 5 (5!) World Series DVDs you're gonna pop in and go on living your lives.

My inspiration to write this little piece stems from a Twitter conversation I had just yesterday with a Yankee fan friend of mine. He tweeted that the Yankees topping the Orioles was a "fitting finish." My reply was that the underdog Orioles defeating the team that literally proclaims itself to be "top of the heap" after every home win would be fitting, not the team with the most titles advancing to the next round. 

And this, by the way, is an ironclad point that speaks to our human evolution; what we define as just. An upstart team with a manager who was once fired by the Yankees knocking them out of the playoffs: that's a feel-good story! The perennial powerhouse defeating a team no one gave a chance to in April in the first round? Nobody wants to see THAT movie. If the Yankees beating the Orioles yesterday was "fitting," then so is a movie about the 2008 financial collapse where the banks are portrayed as the victimized protagonists. One team controls 25% of all the World Series Championships. Not exactly Occupy Wall Street numbers, but as close as you're getting in sports.

My friend then went on to argue that whenever the Yankees lose, Yankee fans have to deal with (whimper) every single other fan-base hating on them. So basically every year that ends without a title is a tragedy? Well boo-fucking-hoo! This is just the newest version of Yankee fan entitlement, which has run rampant the past few decades. You'll hear on New York sports radio or ESPN this notion that a championship is expected every year. I'm surprised this sentiment has never been called out for just how obnoxious it is. Championships are not to be expected, they are to be hoped for, dreamt of. Also, doesn't this perceived "us against the world"/victimized mentality of Yankee fans simply prove my point about the victory not being "fitting"? If no one but Yankee fans are rooting for that outcome, how could it possibly be good drama?

Some may say that I would act the exact same way if I were in their shoes, but I actually have proof that I wouldn't. Y'see, my favorite football team is the New York Giants, who've won 2 Super Bowls in the past 5 years. I am not exaggerating when I say I do not particularly care if they don't win another Super Bowl for the next 20 years. I've been alive for 4 and have adult memories of 2, so I'm good. This is because I hold my sports fandom to a very high standard, one that recognizes the value of a championship and is not driven by a greed to hoard them. Every professional sport is better off when a new team wins every year, and I'll believe that till I die.

All I ask of you Yankee fans (with absolutely ZERO expectation of follow-through) is this: OWN IT. Be happy your team wins, but concede that dramatically, it's a complete injustice. Appreciate Derek Jeter properly, knowing full well he'd be gone by now if your late owner didn't shell out significantly more than any sane person would be willing to pay for his skill-set. And most importantly, look back on your past championships fondly, not as merely as part of a manic collection that must build, build, build...

I wasn't lucky enough to have been an adult in the 1960s or 80s, when the Mets ruled New York (in attendance & cultural popularity). All I have is the hope that I live to see another fine era for the franchise. If I get to see the Mets even win a single championship, I know I'd recognize my good fortune enough to appreciate it graciously.

The Tree of... Huh?

With the Academy Awards fast approaching, Terrance Malick's The Tree of Life has emerged as a strong contender for Best Picture. Oscar Blog InContention's Kris Tapley wrote as convincing an argument for the film winning the award as one might find.

  

While I respect his opinion and find it perfectly valid, it is also completely wrong; The Tree of Life is an undeniably bad film. It is guilty of a number of filmmaking infractions, any of which individually render a film painful to watch, nevermind in aggregate. 

The violations...

1.) There is NO narrative structure. Nothing ever happens to set any semblance of a story into motion. There are no character arcs. Any scene could conceivably be placed anywhere in the film; no scene is begotten by the previous, nor begets the one that follows. The film moves from scenes of the grown protagonist to his childhood and back again, the only common bond being that we're seeing the same people over and over again. What happens in one scene has absolutely no effect on the next, nor deals with the consequences (which are few) of the prior.

2.) (Whispering) Voiceover. One of the immutable laws of filmmaking: any movie relying largely on VO is weak by definition. Stories are told by the juxtaposition of images, the cuts, not disembodied voices. In this case, when the director adds the staggeringly pretentious element of recording all the dropped-in dialogue in barely (if at all) discernible whispers, it descends to an unprecedented low.

3.) Running Time. If you're going to make us sit and watch for 2 hours & 19 minutes, at least let us feel like you needed all that time to get your point across. I estimate roughly 30 to 45 minutes of TOL could've been cut and it would've still achieved what it set out to do... whatever that is. Case in point: The Dark Knight ran 13 minutes longer and The Godfather 36, however both earned and warranted our attention for the entire duration.

And most importantly...

4.) It was a TOTAL cop-out. There is absolutely no consensus between those who viewed TOL as to the simple question of what happens. To ask ten different people who saw the film, "what's it about?" is to receive ten different answers. The story (in this case, a term used very loosely) is left completely up to interpretation. The director fails in the most literal sense of his job; he fails to direct the audience through his film. This is not to be confused with complexity; it is nothing more than ambiguity. Films that are complex bring everyone to the same point, leaving the journey up for analysis and questioning. This film doesn't even commit to where we end up.

If I were to guess, I'd say Malick winged it. He didn't know exactly where this was going on-set, and what we have is what he came up with in the editing room.

As to the assertion that this is "art," therein lies a whole different issue. Filmmaking is a craft; it's never supposed to be art. Y'know what though? I could see The Tree of Life working better as a walk-through installation than it does as a film.

*****

So now you see, factual evidence as to why this is a bad film. But film criticism is subjective, right? How can someone's opinion be wrong? Because it can be. I direct you to the late Gene Siskel, who put it best when he said "There is a point when a personal opinion shades off into an error of fact. When you say The Valachi Papers is a better film than The Godfather, you are wrong." (I've never seen The Valachi Papers, but I'm pretty sure Siskel nails it here.) Likewise, there are people of the opinion that dinosaurs walked the earth with man. Their opinions too, are wrong.

But if I'm correct, why then is TOL praised at all? Some people, like Roger Ebert, were reminded of their own childhoods in the 1950s; victims of their own nostalgia. Master screenwriter William Goldman once said that some movies are "medicinal," meaning that people like them because they think they should. Because of Terrance Malick's reputation, I think a lot of people were psychologically predisposed to liking this movie because they believed liking it made them deep and intellectual. (It doesn't.)

The Tree of Life is what Adaptation would've been had Charlie Kaufman not done us all the service of writing himself into the screenplay: flowing, digressive prose with no real purpose. It is vague, noncommittal and devoid of plot. It's also perfectly okay to like it. 

Hey, I like some bad movies too. I just always acknowledge they are as such.

(Note: This was written in response to my general feelings about the movie, not in particular as a backlash to Kris Tapley's column. Admittedly, reading his piece did ignite a fire in me to write something, but it is in no way intended to be directed at him. I've actually met Kris on a few occasions and hold no ill-will against him.)

Palinites: GIVE UP

Seriously, the non-logic Palin supporters out there have to conjure up simply to justify her to themselves is remarkable. In the above video, she CLEARLY fumbles through the explanation of Paul Revere's midnight ride, claiming he "warned the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms" and that he "[sent] those warning shots and bells that we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free."

If you watch the video, it's pretty clear that she doesn't know the actual story: that Paul Revere rode from South Boston to Cambridge warning the colonists of a British Invasion.

Not this kind

(What Palin probably doesn't know either, is that Revere wasn't even the rider of note that fateful night. That man was Israel Bissell.)


Rather than concede the unequivocal TRUTH (that she got it wrong), Palin's supporters found a text written by Revere himself peripherally relevant to what Palin said, found here.

To summarize Mr. Revere's statement, he was ambushed by the British soldiers, and told them, as they held a gun to his head, mind you, that he had warned the militia and they were ready to fight. He basically said, "A whole bunch of my buddies are over that hill waiting for you, so if you wanna act tough: bring it, assholes."


From this, Palin's supporters claim that Revere DID warn the British, and she was in fact enlightening Americans as to the little-known aspects of Paul Revere's ride. Even if she were actually referencing that text (and who wants to bet that she really was?), how were her words, that Paul Revere defended the 2nd Amendment before it even existed, reflective of the little-known incident described in Revere's letter? As I said earlier, they're peripherally relevant, which doesn't amount to "very relevant" any day of the week.


What bothers me most about Sarah Palin is what I call her "Anti-Intellectual Crusade." She speaks about education and worldliness like it's a bad thing, (remember: only the Midwestern United States is "the real America") even marginalizing the President as a "lawyer" like it's a dirty word. Guess what, Sarah? Not all lawyers are created equal; there's a difference between a Harvard-educated attorney and the guy with the cowboy hat for "Binder & Binder." And y'know who else were lawyers? The FOUNDING FATHERS.

This is a person who thinks "what newspapers do you read?" is an unfair question. This is a person who believes the First Lady is trying to prevent parents from feeding their children sweets by promoting health-food education. This is a person who needs to be phased out.


Not even Snooki is this undeserving of her notoriety. I hope that after 2012 we don't ever have to hear from Ms. Palin ever again. No more of her folksy, down-home, regular-folk jargon; dropping her g's at every opportunity. You're an idiot, Mrs. Palin. Just GO AWAY.

Praying for Japan

Earthquake, Tsunami, Nuclear Disaster. Any single one of these events can be catastrophic enough, let alone occurring in succession.    

Admittedly, I'm guilty of barely caring at first. Japan is a world away, and though I felt sympathy towards those in need, there was very little I could actually do to help and felt it was best to be minimally informed as not to upset myself by overly digesting every piece of information. 

Now, what started as a disaster that potentially could be overcome within six months or so (not accounting for the loss of life, which can never be made better), now we're facing a worldwide environmental disaster with the potential meltdown of a nuclear power plant. Already radiation is leaking, but I pray (despite my disbelief in a higher power) those working tirelessly can contain it before the worst happens.

It's like the world has been coming to an end in the past several years. Katrina, the economic collapse, the Haiti Earthquake, the Oil Spill, now this. When I was a kid it always felt like everything was always getting better. Now I can't help but feel things keep getting worse.

Lebowski Haikus

The fabulous link below will direct you to a site that randomly generates haikus using lines of dialogue from my favorite film, "The Big Lebowski."

Dudeist Haiku Generator

Honestly, I don't think it's capable of generating one that'll disappoint.

A couple of my favorites:

The retaining wall

Beauty of simplicity

Just business papers

Sometimes there's a man

His dick, his rod, his Johnson

With a cleft asshole

As a bonus, an original from yours truly:

This fucking strumpet

Natural, zesty enterprise

Video artist

Mercy Mercy Me > What's Going On?

In the canon of Gaye (very different than the "canon of gays"), I enjoy this little diddy to his more popular socially-conscious one.

On the same token, (and this is a VERY unpopular opinion) I think Clapton's "I Shot the Sheriff" > Marley's.

That is all.

Songs we should NEVER have to hear again Part 2

"Hey Soul Sister" Train - I know, quite a bold statement for one of last night's Grammy winners, but hear me out:

Besides the incessant, repetitive and annoying onomatopoeic chorus, this song should be disqualified for future play merely for ripping off another hit, "I'm Yours" by Jason Mraz. Compare for yourselves below.

Exhibit A: 

And now the ripoff:

Y'see?

The only train I'm interested in

"I Will Survive" Gloria Gaynor - Now I don't necessarily consider this song bad or unlistenable, however it is EXTREMELY overplayed (especially at karaoke) and, more importantly IT IS A LIE. Yes, you heard right, the lyrics are completely false. Why? Because it's usually the guy who's fine after the breakup. Girls may flaunt their "okay-ness" in the form of song (another that comes to mind is Beyonce's "Single Ladies") but in reality it's not "I Will Survive," but "I Will Make the Next Man in My Life Pay For This By Becoming Really, Really Crazy."

"Pour Some Sugar On Me" Def Leppard - All in all, I just think this song just plain sucks. To all you Leppard-proponents out there... even if you find it a little bit catchy you must admit: it is very, very STUPID. Add to that an uber-simplistic beat (here's a thought: your drummer loses an arm, how about FIRING him??) and it's clearly overstayed its welcome in the sonic realm.

Show a little respect

"It wasn't what ya said, it was the way ya said it..."

--Old Feminist Proverb

I'm not suggesting that Bill O'Reilly was unfair, or operated with a subversive agenda, nor that this was "gotcha journalism," as one of my (cough) "favorite" people might say. What I do believe is that Mr. O'Reilly treated Barack Obama as though he were any other person... and not the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES.

Maybe if you've known the guy for awhile (call him "Barry," go back long ago to your days in Kenya together--oops!) it might be appropriate to: 

• interrupt him

• step on his sentences

• tell him there are those in the American public who "hate him" (as if he hasn't heard)

• or ask questions authoritatively, not inquisitively 

...in a private setting. When you have the honor of interviewing the Commander in Chief on live television, you treat him with the utmost respect, whatever you may think of him at the time.

Now it is fair to say that this very well may be the utmost respect Bill O'Reilly is capable of showing; there's no evidence to suggest otherwise at this time. Still, it is my belief that George W. Bush was hands down the worst president in history (so much so that I think there's no one capable of doing a worse job) and admittedly HATE him (still, push comes to shove, I'd probably have a beer with the guy), however I wouldn't dare treat him like THAT if I were his interviewer. All that integrity and I'm not even a journalist!

Let me reiterate: I make no claims of any ulterior motives of Bill O'Reilly to damage or expose the president with his interview. He just thought it more appropriate to treat him like a commoner instead of a statesman.

An Equine-Alternative to your Shitbox

A good friend, Mr. William Hinton Wilder Anderson III, directed me to the clip above, and I couldn't be more grateful. Not only is the song downright hilarious, but, to put it in the parlance of WHWA3, the subtleties present themselves on the subsequent viewings. Translation: it gets funnier every time you watch it, much like Lebowski. Will was kind enough to provide the following equation determining their musical style:

(The Commitments + Michael Jackson)  =  The Rubberbandits

(Weird Al Yankovic x The Streets)

The "Rubberbandits" wear those masks to keep their anonymity, because apparently they vandalized something using the "Rubberbandits" moniker, then decided to expand their horizons into music, comedy, etc. Basically they'd get arrested if their identity was revealed. Kind of like a vulgar duo of Irish Banksies (is the plural of "Banksy" Banksies? Don't know how grammar applies to rogue artists).

For your viewing pleasure, I've provided a viewer's guide below of the video's most precious moments (with time-stamps, of course).

0:14 - A bald man with a shaved head and goatee with each arm around a girl has a teardrop tattoo, implying he's killed a man.

0:17 - Grey suit, lavender shirt, striped purple tie = very unhappy for some reason

0:25 - The Father of the Bride is just perfect

0:28 - They achieved critical mass with their degree of bridesmaid sluttiness.

0:32 - Same level of sluttiness for those not in the wedding party

0:38 - The "loose girls chew gum" theme starts to become apparent

1:18 - The lyric "if you're looking for a ride, I've a horse outside": uproarious if spoken, ten times that when sung

1:33 - The other Rubberbandit is massaging the Groom's shoulders

1:55 - The actor playing the priest gives an Academy Award-worthy performance in lip-synching "Fuck your Honda Civic"

2:39 - The bridesmaid's lip-synching here is a close second

2:46 - What's any song without a "call & response" part?

3:00 - It's not a party till the bridesmaids don horse-masks

3:27 - The wonderful illustration that a horse can never be booted by parking enforcement, followed shortly thereafter by the realization that a horse is probably better than any of those POS cars

****

I hope this was as enjoyable experience to all those reader(s) out there as it was to me.

P.S. For your pleasure, a 7-year-old photo of my aforementioned friend Will

Andy Pettite: Not a Hall of Famer

 

Andy Pettite announced his retirement today, and so the debate of his Hall of Fame credentials begins. I'm here to say there is no debate. His confession of using HGH aside, Andy Pettite is simply just NOT a Hall of Famer. The stats speak for themselves:


http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/pettian01.shtml 

The Pettite-proponents (say that 3 times fast) will point to his wins (240), his career ERA (3.88, which is mediocre by HOF standards at best) or his reputation as a "big game" pitcher. These may sound all well and good for those unnaturally enamored with Pettite (read: Yankee fans), but the fact of the matter is he's not even CLOSE.

He pitched for 16 seasons. Despite his aforementioned career ERA being below 4, he only had 7 seasons in which he posted an ERA of 3.99 or better. He didn't strike out many batters, never won a Cy Young Award, and led the league in a major category (wins) but once.

It's called the "Hall of Fame," not the "Hall of Very Good." Personally, Pettite was one of my favorite pitchers to watch. His motion was fluid and his intensity was unmatched. But neither of those things made him great.

 
If he spent his entire career in Kansas City, he wouldn't even be in the discussion for the Hall of Fame. He spent most of his career in New York, with two years in Houston, and he still isn't.

P.S. Guess what Yankee fans? Mike Mussina's not a Hall of Famer either.

Mark Zuckerberg: Worst Actor EVER

Seriously, I don't think there's ever been a worse example of delivering lines in all of human history. This includes any Ed Wood film, all the work in David Arquette's canon, and even my pre-school Thanksgiving play (and others like it) about the Pilgrims and Indians.

Awful. Even for a socially-awkward billionaire.

Songs we should NEVER Have to Hear Again

There are lots of songs no one should have to ever hear again. Heck, the entire catalogues of certain artists (Insane Clown Posse, Matchbox 20) and even entire genres (thrash metal, polka, Christian Rap) that largely are, with good reason, utterly verboten... But the parameters here are for popular songs that are sooOOO overplayed, they should never pollute the sonic realm ever again.

In no particular order:


"Sweet Home Alabama" Lynyrd Skynyrd - besides the name of their band sucking to the umpteenth power, this guitar-twanging anthem somewhat reminiscent of Deliverance's "Dueling Banjos" makes the notion of being sodomized by Rednecks more appealing than having to listen to this garbage. The tune is irritating, the chorus' appeal preys on the most simplistic, Chro-magnon urges to say something (anything!) in unison, and if you genuinely like this song we may not be able to be friends anymore.

Skynard's Decor of Choice

"Baby Got Back" Sir Mix-a-Lot- this song had its day, but that day has long passed. I don't think the demographic of "flat-ass-loving" guys have much of a voice anymore, so mission: accomplished; let's stop playing it already! Did we ever find out who knighted Sir Mix-a-lot, by the way? 

 

"I Will Always Love You" Whitney Houston- I possibly hate this song more than I've ever hated anything. I think the chorus (the "I..e-I...e-I..." part, UGH) is the literally the worst sound to ever be heard ANYWHERE. My hell would be to spend eternity trapped in a room with this song playing.

First choice for "Kill Whitney Houston" in Google Image Search

 ****

That is all that comes to mind at the moment, but worry not; there will be sequels to this post.

Chris Matthews Blows a Gasket... Then Everyone Misses the Point

You don't have to watch all nine minutes and change to get the gist of it; Chris Matthews is very, VERY angry. But then again, it's perfectly reasonable to take umbrage with the notion of an official elected to our nation's Congress making statements exposing their complete ignorance of American History. Michele Bachmann in particular is very highly lauded by the Tea Party and other members of the far right, yet she actually thinks our Founding Fathers were anti-slavery. Pitiful, disappointing and just plain stupid are a few unequivocal descriptors that come to mind. Shame on you, Congresswoman Bachmann.

Yet it's my opinion that Matthews crossed the line. Despite that I agree with his outrage over the fact that we live in a nation where people of questionable intellect hold elected office with what seems like a high frequency, he is a supposed newsman/commentator/moderator/whatever you want to call him. People of such stature should hold themselves to a higher standard while on the air.

Chris, control your emotions, man! Tirelessly berating Tea Party co-founder Sal Russo, as fun as we all know tormenting Tea Partiers can be, is no way to get your point across. Practice composure when you expose the party's ignorance and hypocrisy and their likely-flimsy response will play right into your argument.

Now we have Glenn Beck coming to the defense of the Congresswoman (who does a great job of combining Sarah Palin's empty stare with former Florida Attorney General Katherine Harris' awful makeup) with his GENIUS assertion that the Three-Fifths Compromise was intended to destroy slavery. With "reporting" like that, how does this man even have a following and what can we do to make him go away?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/28/glenn-beck-chris-matthews-bachmann_n_815610.html 

But wait! On another note, someone named Joanne Bamberger seems to think Matthews' repeated use of the term "balloonhead" in regards to Bachmann was sexist.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/01/26/michele-bachmann-is-a-balloon-head-in-chris-matthews-book/ 

Uh, just because it was directed at a woman by a man does not automatically make it sexist. And just because he made a previous comment about Sarah Palin that, quite frankly is borderline at best, in my opinion, does not cause any remarks he makes about women here forth fall into the same category. 

Despite my relative ambivalence to Bill O'Reilly's frequent use of the word "Pinhead," if it did upset me, I'd be very presumptuous to decry it as sexist were it to be used against a woman. (This gets me thinking, could a Pinhead potentially pop a Balloonhead? Because we should have chaperons if the two are thinking about getting cozy any time soon...)


Matthews is right about Michele Bachmann; the contrary argument does not hold up, Glenn Beck. Regardless of one's past scathing remarks, a "Baloonhead" does not a sexist make, Ms. Bamberger. The whole point is that Matthews had a lay-up to make a good point, but he missed it.

"The Dark Knight Rises"... Literally

It's been less than a week since Warner Bros. revealed the villains in the next Batman film to be Catwoman (played by Anne Hathaway) and Bane (Tom Hardy). Catwoman we're all familiar with, but, for those of you not in the know, Bane is a former Latin American prisoner fueled by "Venom," a potent steroid that calls to mind a resemblance to late 90's Mark McGwire.

I figured I'd use this as an opportunity to get my plot predictions out there early, that way if I'm wrong, my incorrectness will simply fade away into the vast echo-chamber that is the blogosphere, but if I'm correct, deity-status will be bestowed upon me within the comic book community (which is kinda like being a four-foot guy in midgetville, but I digress...)

So here's what I'm thinking: Bane is most famously known as the man that broke Bruce Wayne's back (literally snapped him over his knee like Bo Jackson's bat after a strikeout), so that's just what he'll do. Yes, Christian Bale will be wheelchair-bound shortly after the first act break. He'll be just like the Big Lebowski, only the loss of his legs will be credited to a steroid-induced freak instead of that "Chinaman" in Korea.


During his rehab, Catwoman will emerge as another vigilante, but Gotham will fall deeper in turmoil without that sweet brand o' Bat-Justice they've become so accustomed to. Right before the third act, Bruce will walk again, a la former New York Jet Dennis Byrd, and return to kick butt and close out the trilogy.


You've heard it here first: the "Rises" in the title has to do with rising from a wheelchair, which is definitely the hardest type of "rising" on the "rising scale" (which goes from "bread" to "wheelchair," in case anyone asks...)