Bad to the Bone...Marrow with Scallions

Verbal lashings, soul crushing, and that feeling of never being good enough.

No, this is not about parental expectations or anything like that. This is about those celebrity chefs we love to hate, and hate to love.

To start the list, I give you Anthony "No Reservations" Bourdain. The master of sarcasm and worldwide cuisine (take that Andrew Zimmern) is a self-professed hater of all celebrity chefs, including the Food Network line-up of Rachel Ray, Bobby Flay, and Sandra Lee (Emeril Lagasse was on this list, but both have since reconciled). Taking over native Minnesotan Andrew Zimmern's post of the Aficionado of Creepy, Disturbing and World-wide cuisine (everything from classic French to Japanese street food), he has earned his spot on the Travel Channel, getting them an Emmy nomination. The man is renouned for giving his honest opinion, even when it isn't asked for. The prime example; his book "Kitchen Confidential: Adventures in the Culinary Underbelly" shone a harsh light on the restaurant business (long before any of this information was constantly spewed by the Bravo network or as Gordon Ramsay has done on Kitchen Nightmares).

Next up, the British Bulldog, Gordon "F-Word" Ramsay. Anyone who has turned to Fox and seen Kitchen Nightmares or Hell's Kitchen knows that Ramsay, OBE (yes, he's an officer of the British Empire) can explain why he deserves that middle name. Along with the power of YouTube, you can see the uncensored version of any show he has been on, listening to all the swear-infused glory. Ramsay's sometimes maniacal obssession with perfection has driven his junior chefs to tears, much to his eventual dismay. Having become Britain's most sucessful chef in just under a decade, Gordon is set to take over the world, screaming as he goes. The fiery-temepered chef is known for lashing out at anyone and anything, including famously kicking out a food critic that insulted him.

While the thought of working for these guys would turn our stomaches, watching them berate, abuse and make others fall into a puddle of tears is the heigh of entertainment. Keep going guys, I'll keep tuning in.

Better Than Garlic!

We can all applaud the brave journalist who went out, risked their career, and uncovered one of the biggest news stories of the decade. But what about the dedicated few that write pure fiction? The ones that risk their careers (by looking stupid) and also uncover some of the biggest stories of the decade (tales that are completely false)?

The Onion, one of the nation's best parody newspapers, has been publishing fake and hilarious articles for the last twenty years. While most are blatantly obvious in their less than official nature, some are harder to decifer. In 2002, Reuters reported that the Beijing Evening News republished some translated portions of and Onion article "Congress Threatens To Leave D.C. Unless New Capitol Is Built". Obviously, this is completely false. The article in itself was a parody of sports teams demanding their own stadiums all the time. Yes, even real news outlets can get it wrong sometimes.

But, to be fair, the Onion does have actual new stories in there. Depending on the local area, it can be a restaurant review, or an opinion of a local band. The newspaper is most infamous for it's cover articles, the stories that have no validity whatsoever. This cover, obviously not published at the time of the actual event, is a prime example. The newspaper has even had books, just with pictures of their "covers", published. They can be purchase anywhere, especially the internet.

Here's to another twenty years of completely fake, and completely wonderful, news.

Once More With Feeling

Musicals have become a strange focal point of my film and music interests. As I speak, the Reefer Madness soundtrack is sitting in my iTunes Music Store Shopping Cart, Into the Woods is playing in my DVD player and I have plans to see Wicked and Repo the Genetic Opera over the weekend.

Now, what could define a musical for someone? The definition (for me) has changed from Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast to more accomplished musicals like Rent and Avenue Q (both of which I'm seen some Broadway form of). The Disney musicals of my childhood worked when I was five or six, but while I still enjoy The Little Mermaid, I'd really prefer to watch something along the lines of Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street or Into the Woods (strangely, both are Stephen Sondheim plays).

There are many types of musicals that one could be drawn to, but lately there have been so many revivals for a new generation, it seems some of the oldest and established shows are making a resurgence, while musicals based on popular movies seem to popping up everywhere. A prime example would be the upcoming show based on the 2001 smash-hit, Shrek.

Now...I'm a bit dubious about this one. Shrek was a very enjoyable family film (as was it's sequel Shrek 2), but the idea of turning a family movie into a Broadway show (shows which usually run for two hours or more) seems like an unwise move. I said the same about the news of Legally Blonde the Musical back in 2007, but I saw the MTV airing of it, and I'm only slightly ashamed to admit that I thoroughly enjoyed myself. So, while I have my doubts about this upcoming venture, it could very well be the 2008 version of Legally Blonde.


Now, obviously, when it comes to musicals and this day and age, I'm sorry, but I must mention the dreaded High School Musical franchise. Calling it this generation's Grease? I think not. Grease actually had cast members that sung instead of warbled. Obviously, I am not a fan of those movies. I saw the first movie when it originally aired on the Disney Channel in 2006, watched the entire thing, and was forever done. How could I have known there would be two more sequels to such an over-publicized piece of (insert many expletives here). Now I'm hearing rumors of a fourth installment? Disney, I know you love this steady stream of income like anyone else would, but LET IT GO. Enough of Zac Efron prancing around trying to assert his masculinity and Vanessa Hudgens screeching about like a Prima Donna wannabe.


Can I please have a decent musical back? Here's hoping that Avenue Q and Wicked make it to the big screen in the next few years.

Beyonce in the 1950s...again.

Cadillac Records, possibly another shot at movie fame for Beyonce Knowles, is slated to be released on December 5th, 2008. Yes, this is me being cynical (that must come as a huge shock). Beyonce did a great job in Dreamgirls (but Jennifer Hudson did better as evident by her Academy Award), but can she really play the incomparable Etta James? This isn't just some carbon copy of Diana Ross (or actually, a Broadway musical), but a living legend. Mos Def has been cast to play Chuck Berry, the controversial inventor of the duck walk. Adrien Brody also signed on to portray Leonard Chess, a Polish Jew that helped Muddy Water and Willie Dixon famous in the 1950s.

So far, it just looks like everyone is playing to their strengths. Mos Def and Beyonce are playing music artists that struggled and eventually became famous, while Adrien Brody is playing a Polish Jew, a role that under Roman Polanski, earned him an Oscar, and a siezed chance to kiss Halle Berry. Yes, I will be seeing this movie, but I'm unconvinced that it will be as good as Dreamgirls, or as bad as That Thing You Do!.

The Schumacher Years Vs. The Nolan Years

The blockbuster of the 2008 summer, The Dark Knight, is the second installment of the Christopher Nolan “reboot” of the Batman movie series. After years of monetarily successful (but substance-lacking) movies produced by Joel Schumacher, fans of the Batman series were both eager, and wary of Christopher Nolan’s takeover of the possible movie goldmine.

While the Burton era (Batman and Batman Returns) was critically acclaimed and very Burton-esque (dark, Gothic, and full of random dead people), when Joel Schumacher took over as director, the films suffered. While the franchise still managed to garner a fair amount of money, the quality and the plot suffered severely. Every movie revolved around a romantic interlude that Bruce Wayne seemed to conjure out of nowhere. The casting didn’t help at all either. While Michael Keaton provided a solid Batman, Val Kilmer and George Clooney made the character seem like a billion dollar playboy, who kind of barely fights crime on the side. Val was pretty good when it came down to the raw acting, but Clooney just played…himself, with a Batmobile. When you add Robin (the most useless damsel in distress sidekick ever), you’ve got a recipe for disaster. But oh no! They were not done! Alicia Silverstone, Uma Thurman, Tommy Lee Jones, Jim Carrey, and “Ah-nold” all made appearances in the two Schumacher directed films (with only a few ever being worth their salt). Sadly, the only part that was cast correctly was Alfred, played by Michael Gough.

Eight years after the release of Batman & Robin, British director Christopher Nolan took over the series by releasing Batman Begins, a new tale on how Bruce Wane came to be the Batman we all know (and occasionally love). Nolan decided to stray far away from the visually stunning, but mostly plot-vacant world that Joel Schumacher had created. Gotham City was no longer a comic book carbon copy, but…Chicago? Not the obvious choice for one of the comic world’s most crime-ridden cities, but then again, not my choice (personally, seeing Manhattan as Gotham would have suited me just fine). But seeing as how it suited the story just fine, I’ll go on. Christian Bale, mostly known for his work in American Psycho and The Machinist (also Newsies and Equilibrium), was the first non-American to be cast in the role of the Caped Crusader. Like the Frank Miller “re-boot” of the Batman comic series in the mid 1980s, the vision that the new director had given the films gave it a mass appeal to fans and critics alike.

After the success of Batman Begins (which has earned over $350 million to date), Nolan began working on The Dark Knight, the continuation of his revised treatment of the Batman movie franchise. He was adamant in “reinventing the Joker.” After many revisions, the script went from being a Joker origin story (ala The Killing Joke), to a rise-to-power movie, with Batman on the side. While the tragic death of Heath Ledger added to the hype the movie received before it’s release, to most, the film lived up to it. Breaking record upon record, The Dark Knight came to be the undisputed champion of the 2008 summer box-office. To this day, the film has earned almost $1 billion, kicked The Godfather off it’s pedestal at number one on the IMDB.com Top 250 list (a place it had held since 1997) and earned a devoted (and sometimes rabid) fan base. With talk of a posthumous Oscar for Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker and the imminent release of the film on DVD and Blu-Ray (on December 9^th), the frenzy that accompanied the release of the film in July could very well return when the movie is finally released in a legal format (especially when it comes to Black Friday).

Joel Schumacher’s Batman movies were a visual attack, throwing everything at you at once. And for the generation that was young and impressionable at the time, it suited them just fine. But as they grew up, they craved more than just a seizure-inducing set and fast-paced plot. The same generation wanted character development, more serious dynamics and less of an ADD attack on the senses. Batman Forever and Batman & Robin were good for their time, but Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are the new wave of superhero movies. Let's enjoy the ride.

Cosmopolitans and Worn-Out Manolos

Sex and the City was a vastly popular series on HBO. After its series finale in 2004, fans (cougars, socialites and women in their mid-forties pining for the “good ol’ days”) eagerly awaited a movie of some form to wrap up the twisted and frayed ends of their beloved Sunday night show. Actually, that’s quite mean and snarky of me. The fan base of SATC is quite varied. Going from the obvious HBO-philes to the giggly teenage girl scandalized by the “sex” scenes with Samantha (Kim Cattral).

The beginning of the movie is the usual montage you’d find in a “Best of…” or season opener of a series. We trace all the main characters (Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte) from the last episode to their current lives. Carrie is living it up with her years-long on/off “man-friend” Mr. Big, Samantha is living in California with Smith (the actor turned model turned actor again hunk of the last season) while managing his career, Charlotte is still in Manhattan with her husband and their newly adopted Chinese daughter Lily, and Miranda is “slumming it” in Brooklyn with her husband Steve and Brady, her three-year old son. So we have the fashionista, the “promiscuous”[1] one, the wannabe socialite and the bitchy lawyer all back together again for another episode (one that lasts almost two and a half hours).

While the movie was obviously targeted toward women (the over-use of pink, crystals and girl power), movie aficionados, effeminate “people”[2], giggly tweens hoping to sneak into an R-rated movie, and many more flocked to see it. It’s called Sex and the City, not Gun-Nuts in the Suburbs. Men don’t usually watch shows with such femininity unless they’re being forced to by a significant other, or think they can get something else out of the deal. It’s a movie, based off a show that centers on women. For the most part, women watch shows based off or around women. It’s just a social norm. Besides, what guy wants to watch Carrie Bradshaw whine about how her new boy-toy can’t give her an orgasm when they could just as easily click a button and watch something less Sarah Jessica Parker-y?

The New York Times' review of the movie is scathing, raw and leaves you feeling like you’ve walked out of Pessimists Anonymous. My review (hopefully) leaves you feeling slightly less so. I don’t completely agree with the Times’ review, but it does make some valid points. Two and a half hours for a movie, based on a show, is too long. While I let it slide with The Dark Knight[3], for something that is supposed to be light, fun and quick (like the show was), after the first hour and a half, you begin to wonder why it hasn’t ended yet. Unlike the Times, I found the movie to be a wonderful addition to the SATC franchise, if only taken at face value and not something deeper. I mean, come on, it’s a show about sex, shoes, fashion and middle-aged love (or whatever small pun Carrie is going to turn it into this week). How seriously are we supposed to take it?

[1] Or in Laymen’s terms; SLUT!
[2] Using the PC term per Shauna’s rant the first day.
[3] Because The Dark Knight was EPIC AS HELL.