“Or Who Cares?” – Curly Howard

“That’s not cool. That’s not how you play the game.” – Eric Chavez on the Oakland Athletics after they “clapped” and “chanted” too much in the dugout.

First, Eric, the Oakland Athletics are fighting for postseason positioning…they’re a young team, they got excited, so they expressed emotion.  It wasn’t anti-Yankee…it was pro-Athletic.  Loosen up, dude.

Second, who the heck cares what you think?  Just because you’re a Yankee you think anyone on ANY other team gives a sh1t about being lectured on how to “properly” play the game the Yankee way?  Noone outside New York gives a sh1t, and it’s sad that you appear to think that the Athletics might be “properly chastised” after having a Yankee finger wagged at them saying “Nooooo….bad Athletics…”.  The concept that ANYONE outside New York cares about the “Yankee Way” is about as valid as the concept that prior to the 2004 ALCS any Yankee fan considered Yankees-Red Sox a “rivalry”.  Please…

Third, since they were in the dugout, they weren’t actually playing the game at that point.

For an example of playing the game, look at your teammate, Alex Rodriguez, in the 2004 ALCS against the Boston Red Sox.  Notice how he slaps down with his hand in violation of the rules to knock the ball loose from Bronson Arroyo.  Notice how he puts his hands on his head and gets that “What did I do???” 5-year-old look on his face and pouts.

That would be an example of how not to play the game.

If you’re talking about people WATCHING the game, watch the lowlights (Thank you, “Big Eddie”) of every Sox-Yankees game of any importance from 1986-2004.  Notice the “Nine-teen Eight-teen” chants of your fans whenever the Sox inevitably start to lose, basically saying “Our team has beaten you, but that’s not enough…we want to rub your loser noses in it”.  That would be an example of how not to watch the game.

But hey, what do I know?  I’m not a Yankee.  Praise the Heavens above.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Louis C.K.: Chewed Up (2008)

This guy seems to be really popular lately amongst the artsy/cutting-edge crowd.

Remembering having seen him do stand-up a while ago and recalling him as being funny, I was a bit disappointed because generally that means said comedian is pretentious and weird without being particularly funny.  Maybe he’s popular in that crowd because he’s white, totally irreverent, and uses the “n” word (he covers that) and doesn’t seem scared.  Also, he’s clever, crude, and in bad taste…and says things probably a lot of said people WANT to say.

But I was surprised, when I watched this, that I was RIGHT…he IS funny.  Completely tasteless, and not hilarious or anything “unique”, but very funny.

Highlights: N word/C word/F word combo, anti-deer rant, “buckets of disease” rant, crazy waitress rant

Inspirational Quote: “When people come out of your vagina and step on your dreams”

Grade: B+

Revelation: 9/23

NOW I understand.

The reason the male demographic likes “2 Broke Girls”, I know now after seeing Kat whats-her-name falling out of her Emmy dress, is Two Big Breasts.  Some of the females, too, I guess.

So, sorry guys, but hey ladies…if your bf wants to watch this show and he says it’s because it’s funny or female-empowering or…anything, really…it’s not.  It’s cuz he likes big boobs.

Which is cool and all…but why would you sit through this sh1t?  Just like…buy a Kat-whats-her-name poster and stare at it for 30 minutes.  Much more tolerable, because you don’t have to listen to the show’s soundtrack.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 8)

Whilst editing my Theatre of Tragedy reviews, besides wanting to attend some LARP, the following thought occured to me…

If they made an unofficial, un-authorized (suspend disbelief and PRETEND Stephen King would EVER turn down an offer for a movie based on something he wrote) sequel to ‘Christine’, and thusly had to intentionally misspell the words for the title, would they perhaps call it ‘Liv, Kristine!!!’?

(Is Liv to Live as Led is to Lead?  Those dumb Americans…)

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Saturday Night Live: The Best Of Will Ferrell: Vol. 1 (1995)

“Cowbell” is here, so that makes watching ‘The Best Of Christopher Walken’ even less necessary. 

But there’s a lot of mediocre/boring sh1t here, too…so if you’re not dying to see “Celebrity Jeopardy” or Ferrell’s great James Lipton impression again, this isn’t necessary either.

Grade: C

Deep Puppy Thoughts (Part 7)

I love the movie Braveheart, really…but the part of me that loves MST3K/Flying Circus would love to see an “alternate” version, made exactly the same as the original, but (having received permission from the owners) inserting Terry Jones’ “Cardinal Biggles” as follows:

*Inquisitor* “Confess, and you may receive a quick death.  Deny, and you must be purified through pain.  Do you confess?”
*Wallace* *Is silent*
*Inquisitor* *Steadily raising his voice* “DO…YOU…CONFESS?”

*Palin* CONFESS!!!
*Biggles, falling to his knees* “I confess!”
*Palin* “Not you!!”

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Clash Of The Titans (1981)

Perhaps I’m a bit biased because of memories from childhood (point of reference: I bought a BRAND SPANKING NEW Atari 2600 and had an “Oh, Joy!” moment) but this is certainly right up there in the “as good as it gets” department for this sort of film.  Dialogue and SFX are cheezy, of course.  But this is a fantasy movie made in 1981…I think that’s almost a given.

What sort of film is it?  It’s a D+D/Fantasy flick.  Not a fictional movie that happens to be set in a fantasy “world”.  What’s the difference?  The ‘Lord Of The Rings’ trilogy are movies based in fantasy worlds.  ‘Dragonslayer’ and ‘Krull’ are D+D/Fantasy flicks.  Two completely different categories.

The difference between these two categories, assuming both are “good” for what they are, is depth.

Depth of characters, depth of plot, depth of emotions/reactions that require/allow intellectual and/or philosophical analysis…as opposed to simply sitting back and enjoying the escapist ride.  Don’t get me wrong…I LIKE this, to an extent.  I like several movies of this sort.  They just honestly aren’t very GOOD if I’m going to be brutally frank about it.  And I am.

Think of it as your favorite junk food: very enjoyable in small doses but not really WORTH anything and if you have too much you might want to throw up.

Highlights: Medusa battle and mechanical owl self-test.

Grade: C+

Mr. Bean: The Whole Bean – Episode 8 (Mr. Bean In Room 426)

The show seems to have lost one writer…and with him, a lot of humor.

Sort of like ‘The Three Stooges’ without Curly or any decent lines (since these are virtually silent films), when your comedy is highly physical/visual in nature and you lose most of the wit, it becomes simply dull and tedious.

That’s what this is for the most part, and since there are far superior (previous) examples of exactly this (only funny) available, watching this is completely pointless.  The end, or a bump in the road?

We can soon find out.

Grade: D-

Mr. Bean: The Whole Bean – Episode 6 (Mr. Bean Rides Again)

This is even better than the last one, which I thought not likely.

But I just can’t call this “excellent”…sight gags are sight gags, no matter how inventive and cleverly done.  But it is good…

Necessity is the mother of Mr. Bean’s really bad inventions.

Grade: B+

Dogs Decoded: Nova (2010)

Very well-made, very well-supported, very interesting, very informative, and very cute.

This settles the “Cats vs. Dogs” intelligence argument pretty well, for those that actually still needed it answered.  Unless you consider cats smarter than 2-year-old humans.  Most dog-haters I’ve met say they “hate” kids, so I guess that’s a very real/sad possibility.

Or, unless you consider “domestication” in any way related to stupidity.  But if you believe that, you probably think that civilized human beings are stupid. 

The ability to obey commands is a sign of intelligence, not stupidity.

By the way, I like cats.  But to suggest that they’re smarter than dogs is…well, stupid.

Ruff!

Grade: B+

1/17/13: See ‘Pupdate: Documentary Grade Edits’.  Grade: B

Mr. Bean: The Whole Bean – Episode 4 (Mr. Bean Goes To Town)

Better than the last, which was better than the last.  Don’t know how good it can really get, but let’s hope for the best.

Having seen several episodes of ‘Blackadder’, which I’ve never particularly cared for, I now appreciate what a good actor Atkinson is.  The in-your-face snobbery is replaced in ‘Mr. Bean’ with a very different, childlike/ish and completely unpretentious character.  Granted he doesn’t say much (not to mention not being much of a boyfriend), but his expressions are spot-on (I’m trying to be British).

Actually, I am mostly British in ancestry, but you gather my inference.

Highlight: The truly incredible “magic” show

Grade: B

Mr. Bean: The Whole Bean – Episode 3 (The Curse Of Mr. Bean)

I should probably explain at this point what exactly this is, for those who don’t know.

It’s a really weird but mostly harmless guy doing really weird things, often to the amusement/horror/astonishment of normal onlookers.

That’s it, is it?  Spot on, Chris. 

No further explanation necessary, it’d be like trying to explain WHY a joke is funny.  You either like this sort of thing or you don’t…I do.  To see if YOU do, watch this.  It’s a decent example.  If you think it’s stupid, you’ll think ALL Mr. Bean is stupid.  If not, look at my grades/occasional comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Grade: B-

Saturday Night Live: The Best Of Christopher Walken (2004)

Worth watching basically for “Cowbell” (of course) and “Colonel Angus” right at the beginning, maybe the ‘Dead Zone’ parody a little later, and the very ending bit where Walken gives away what everyone always knew or at least suspected.  Skip the rest safely.

Inspirational Quote: “Just to be, how you say, douchebag.”

Grade: C+

Night Of The Living Dead (1968)

This is NOT the “first” zombie movie.  That being said, it IS the movie without which NONE of the zombie/undead/infected/parody/etc… movies that followed would have been possible.  However, that alone doesn’t make it worthy of anything except a high-five and a footnote. 

It doesn’t make it worthy of viewing or analysis.

What makes it worthy of viewing/analysis is the fact that even 40+ years after its release, it’s still creepy and interesting, if not quite scary.  The script is a bit lacking, it’s a bit cheezy sure, the running woman falls down yeah, and the “FX” and scary soundtrack are horribly dated.

But it’s amazing that it’s STILL a legitimate horror movie today, unlike the vast majority of the 60’s B movies (And this is a B movie, like it or not) that are just dull, boring, stupid, and/or completely irrelevant and worthless except as MST fodder.

The basement scene involving a sharp object is a lot more disturbing/shocking than Hitchcock’s shower scene it obviously draws from.  And the ending says more about Humanity than every Romero-wannabe collectively has, ever.

I take back my ‘Survival’ comment…you really did have something(s) to say, George.  But you should have stopped at ‘Land’.

Inspirational Quote: “They’re coming to get you, Barbara…”

Grade: B

1313: Frankenqueen (2012)

From the director who brought you ‘Sorority Babes In The Slimeball Bowl-O-Rama’…

A horror film remarkable for the fact that nothing horrible actually happens.

Well, the first hour is almost-naked men walking around, showering, exercising and lying down with a woman watching them intermittently and taking notes.

At around the hour mark the “plot” begins, then pauses briefly for more showering, then picks up again just in time for the movie to end.

I think I saw some of them drinking Schmitt’s Gay by the pool, too.

Talk about a great time for Shirt-In-A-Can.

I give it a 9.6 on the Das-ometer.

Grade: F-

Great Stuff…

I was just reading an article about Mars “Blueberries”…the article itself was fairly interesting, but what was even more enjoyable was the “intellectual” debate that took place in the comments section after it.  This is where very logical, reasonable, intelligent, well-educated people converse on an adult level.

So…basically one person says something that another disagrees with, and the other person basically says “hogwash” in a very intellectual, snobby way.  Then the first person questions, rather politely, WHY they can so easily dismiss it as “hogwash”. (I’m on the first person’s side in this one). 

Ok, so then the second person responds in a SLIGHTLY less intellectual/snobby and slightly annoyed/mocking sort of way…and it goes ON and ON and ON…descending to Junior High level.

Basically the first person just wanted to discuss the point, but the second person basically said “No, I won, you’re stupid”.  I mean…is this the “advancement” of human interaction?  It was like an argument about Red Sox Vs. Yankees at the end, with one person saying “I win I won’t talk anymore *covering my ears* NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH … by the way, I’m a very reasonable scientist.”.

Just as childish as any other arrogant snob claiming “victory”…they really did, I swear…they said – “I’m not talking anymore, I won”.  Wow.  I thought science was about discovery and friendly interaction for mutual understanding?  I didn’t know it was a pissing contest.

Einstein must be rolling over in his grave at the state of some people that consider themselves “intellectual” today.

Here’s a comparable junior-high level framed-as-“intellectual” spat for comparison, courtesy of the Cheers episode ‘Abnormal Psychology’:

*Frasier* So am I to assume that you just naturally thought that I’d be at this drinking establishment?
*Lilith* Actually, knowing your obsessive-compulsiveness, I checked with your service.  And indeed you’d left them a very complete itinerary of your day.  I trust all went well at the dry cleaners?
*Frasier* Thank you, yes…and, I can assume from your questioning that you’re attempting to make idle conversation rather than articulating some control dysfunction with my personal habits.
*Lilith* That’s correct.

*Norm* Are they “fighting”?

*Lilith* First of all, I think any mention of our past relationship could tarnish the objectivity factor of the show.
*Frasier* You call that a “relationship”?  I mean, we dated one time…the closest we came to physical contact was when you closed the car door on my hand.
*Lilith* Are you repressing?
*Frasier* Oh, forgive me, actually, you’re quite right.  Yes I should be straightforward in telling you that you are passionless, stoic, and emotionally numb.
*Lilith* Apology accepted.
*Frasier* Merci.

*Woody* Yup, I’m pretty sure they’re fightin, he just asked for mercy.

-Puppy

Injustice In Philadelphia

“A Philadelphia judge on Friday granted a condemned man a rare
hearing to weigh whether prosecutors failed to disclose key
evidence indicating the true motive behind a grisly killing
nearly 30 years ago.

The ruling is a major break for Terry Williams, 46, slated to be
the first prisoner in more than 50 years to be executed in
Pennsylvania while still appealing his sentence. Attorneys for
Williams say his life should be spared due to his traumatic and
violent childhood, and the fact that he was sentenced to die for
killing a man who sexually abused him and other teenage boys.

Judge Teresa Sarmina, of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas,
did not stay Williams’ execution, which is scheduled for Oct. 3,
but allowed a hearing next Thursday that opens the door to that possibility. His attorneys want Williams’ sentence reduced to
life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Williams was sentenced to die for murdering Amos Norwood, 56, a
chemist and church volunteer, whose body was found stabbed,
bludgeoned and partially burned in a Philadelphia cemetery in
June 1984. Police traced Norwood’s stolen credit card to Williams
and Marc Draper, a childhood friend who pleaded guilty to murder
and implicated Williams in the crime.

His arrest and trial shocked the city. A college freshman, Williams
was the star quarterback of his championship high school football
team, and a popular and academically gifted student.

Prosecutors argued at trial that the murder was a robbery that
went wrong. Williams’ attorneys now say the killing was motivated
by rage Williams felt toward Norwood, who Williams said started
paying him for sex when he was 13.

But jurors never heard Williams’ claims that he and Norwood were
involved sexually, or that Norwood was implicated in the sexual
abuse of underage teenage boys in his church congregation. The
jury also did not hear Williams’ claims that he had been sexually victimized by neighborhood men and older teens from early
childhood through adolescence. Williams was three months past
his 18th birthday — the legal cutoff for execution in the U.S. —
when Norwood was killed.

After his arrest in the Norwood murder, Williams was charged and
convicted of third-degree murder for the savage stabbing death of
another man, later identified as a prolific abuser of teens. The
man’s body was found in room scattered with dozens of Polaroid
photographs of nude teenage boys.

State and federal appellate courts found that Williams’ attorney
in the Norwood case was negligent in not presenting evidence of
abuse at trial, but rejected his appeal anyway, ruling that the
negligence did not materially impact the jury’s verdict.

Mamie Norwood, the victim’s widow, has pleaded for clemency for
Williams, but Philadelphia prosecutors are pushing hard for his
execution, recently filing a 107-page brief opposing defense
motions for a stay.

The approaching execution has touched a nerve in Pennsylvania,
where several high-profile child sex abuse trials this year have
forced widespread soul-searching over the failure by church
leaders and educators to root out and report sexual predators in
their ranks.

“If any state should know what sexual trauma does to somebody,
it’s Pennsylvania,” said Marc Bookman, executive director of the
Atlantic Center for Capital Representation, an anti-death penalty
group. “And this is the person that gets executed?”

In July, a senior priest with the Catholic Church’s Archdiocese
of Philadelphia was sentenced to three to six years in state
prison after being convicted of allowing a priest known to him as
a sexual predator to maintain extensive contact with children. Judge Sarmina, who ordered the new hearing for Williams, oversaw the trial.

In June, Jerry Sandusky, a former assistant coach at Penn State
University, was convicted of 45 counts of child sexual abuse
over 15 years. Testimony at Sandusky’s trial established that top university officials were repeatedly told of the abuse but did not
report it to police.

Next week’s hearing will feature testimony from Draper, who
pleaded guilty to acting as Williams’ accomplice in the murder of
Norwood and is serving a life sentence without the possibility of
parole. Andrea Foulkes, the Philadelphia assistant district attorney who prosecuted Williams and Draper, also was called to testify.

In sworn declarations to Williams’ defense team, Draper described
the events of Norwood’s murder and said that Philadelphia
prosecutors told him not to discuss sexual involvement between
Williams and the older man.

According to his declarations, the night of the killing, Draper
and Williams were hanging out on a street corner when they were
approached by Norwood in his car. Norwood picked up the two
boys and drove to a nearby cemetery. “Norwood was very
comfortable,” Draper wrote.

At the cemetery, Williams and Norwood went off alone,
presumably to have sex, according to Draper. “After some time
passed, Terry came back to the car and told me to come with
him,” Draper wrote. “Terry was acting crazy. He started yelling
stuff and began hitting Norwood with a tire iron.”

“He was yelling ‘so you like boys, so you like boys’ as he hit
Norwood.”

Draper’s statements about Norwood having sex with Williams were
never disclosed to the defense or at trial, according to Williams’ attorneys. “Neither Ms. Foulkes nor the police wanted to hear
anything about the case having to do with Norwood having sex
with Terry,” Draper said in his statement.

Foulkes, who now works as a federal prosecutor, told the
Philadelphia Enquirer Friday that she could not comment
on the case.

Williams’ defense team also wants to present affidavits indicating
that Norwood propositioned and molested teenage boys he
oversaw as a youth leader at a Philadelphia church.

In February, the Rev. Charles Poindexter, 80, pastor at St. Luke’s
Church in Philadelphia for 33 years, provided a signed statement
for Williams’ defense and an investigator, describing his
suspicions that Norwood was abusing teenage boys in the
congregation. Norwood spent an inordinate amount of time with
the teens, lent them money and let them sleep over at his house,
Poindexter said.

In his statement, Poindexter also said that several years before
Norwood’s death, the mother of a 15-year-old boy told him that
Norwood had fondled her son’s genitals while driving him home
from a church event.

“She also told me that Amos had inappropriately touched a number
of other boys at the church,” Poindexter said in the statement.
“The mother and her son eventually left the church.”

Reached by phone at his home in Virginia, Poindexter denied
making any incriminating statements about Norwood to the
defense team. But the signature at the bottom of the defense
affidavit is identical to the one at the bottom of a police statement
Poindexter gave police in 1984, days after Norwood’s murder.”

– John Rudolf, HuffPost Crime

Colin & Brad: Two Man Group (2011)

Advantages over watching a ‘Whose Line’ repeat: Completely new bits, no “hoedown”.

Unfortunately, that’s all.  The new bits aren’t all that exciting, the old bits seem a little stale and aren’t any better than any given episode, and with Brad Sherwood as opposed to Ryan Stiles, it’s just not as funny…Colin and Ryan were the two funniest improvers on the show, and they had a great chemistry.

I just don’t see/feel that with Colin and Brad.  Besides, Brad was never all that funny.

It’s very “pleasant” and inoffensive, but it’s not worth the time for anyone except hardcore ‘Whose Line’ fans that have memorized every episode.

Grade: D+