Empty Bookshelf Reviews

Category: Reviews

  • Rockstar: Season 2

    This one may balloon to huge proportions again like the season 2 LOST review. That being said, I’m officially starting it on Friday August 18th… we’ll see how long it takes to finish.


    One of the contestants on the show is named “Storm Large”. The one night after she performed, Tommy Lee said “I’d like to see more of you”, and she suggested an internet search. I did and this is what I got.

    I’m not so much the fan of “reality TV”. Call me a TV snob, but I find the amount of manipulation in the genre to be completely too much. Manipulation of people to do certain things. Manipulation of actual events to make things look a certain way. Manipulation of audience emotions to make us feel empathetic or hateful. Certain people who are even more cynical than I am about such things might say that all of these manipulations are used in any sort of narrative/fiction work, and so therefore I shouldn’t be complaining, because nearly all of my favorite shows are fictional. The difference here is the illusion of reality that exists in the non-fiction genre. Shows like Laguna Beach, Survivor, Big Brother, and yes, even “The Real World”, all have producers influencing actions of characters, the editing of actions to portray people in a certain light, and of course the casting of people to fill certain roles on the show… because without an antagonist, there’s no drama, and without drama, there’s no point. And they manage it by making us believe that these are people without outside influence… as they really are.

    Of course in competition reality shows, usually that antagonist comes in the form of a person who isn’t performing up to the standards set by the other competitors, but miraculously does not get voted off, with a much more solid competitor taking that bottom spot. Then there’s always a big “shock” when a popular contestant gets kicked off (once a year without fail), and somehow the one we all seem to hate stays on for another week, until finally they get shelved and we all rejoice.

    Where am I going with this? I’m still gonna need another paragraph to get there. You see, I always hated American Idol. HATED it. Even when I was forced to live with it at work every single day of the week. That might’ve actually made me hate it more. The next January though, I was among a high concentration of people who wanted to watch the audition episodes. I knew where it was going to go. A slew of bad singers hoping to be the next William Hung were going to come on and be completely oblivious to their lack of talent and then be exploited to sell advertising space. AHH America! What I never realized though, was that these horrible singers were actually selling the remainder of the season. Sprinkled in with the talentless souls are a handful of people who are either gorgeous and good singers, or they’re unattractive but have overcome obstacles in order to be able to sing the way they do. And while you think they’re just telling you more about the person, they’re filling your head with sympathy or lust. And that’s where they hook you. The personalities. American Idol is a personality contest as much, if not more than it is a singing contest, with terribly bland arrangements, stiff contestants who are oftentimes “pitchy”, and don’t really know how to entertain a crowd for the most part. And product placement. Lots of product placement. Of course I fell into the trap, but I thought I was being anti-Idol by rooting for the completely awesome Bo Bice (still the best contestant they’ve ever had on the show). “The Man” still won though, because by being the provider of such “anti-Idol” material, they got me to watch it. CURSE THEM!

    I realized that American Idol was like that terrible contestant who nobody seemed to dislike enough to get kicked off. It’s flashy, attractive and diverse/bland enough for EVERYBODY to like something about it. The problem is that it’s not good. But last year after Idol’s season ended I found a show on CBS that did everything that Idol did, nearly five times better, but nobody really knew about.

    Rockstar: INXS was a talent competition to find a new lead singer for the band INXS, probably unknown to most people my age. The show had incredible production design, better camerawork, better direction, better judges, a much much better results show, a phenomenal house band, better arrangements week after week, and at least six singers that probably could’ve won Idol. In fact, the top six contestants were so uniquely awesome that any one of them could’ve had a successful solo career had people actually watched the show. There was half-hour backstage episode every week that took a look at the personal interactions of the contestants, challenges and sort of rockstar-seminar things, and song selection/arrangement, which was a very interesting supplement, but got moved to VH1 because of bad ratings. Also, the show had Brooke Burke wearing conveniently revealing outfits. And it was all on during the summer, when nothing else is on. What more could you ask for?

    Season 2 definitely has a different feel, and for good reason. The contestants are auditioning for a different band, a new band without any released material, and without a former lead singer. Called Supernova consists of Tommy Lee, former Metallica bassist Jason Newsted, and former Guns N’ Roses guitarist Gilby Clarke, who, like INXS in season one, serve as judge and executioner. I’m going to break this all down in good and bad as compared to last season.

    First the good.
    1. The judges are better than last year. Call me ignorant, but I never knew who INXS was, and I could never tell the band members apart when they were giving their comments to the singers. Not only does Supernova have members that stand out on their own, but are telegenic, and give really good advice much of the time. Of course Tommy Lee is gonna flirt with all the women, and there’s gonna be all sorts of innuendo, but there’s also genuinely constructive criticism.

    2. The shows use of alternative media is staggering. They took the backstage show off the air, and put it where people who really would make the effort to watch it have the ability to watch it… the internet. The show’s website has a plethora of activities and information, including “mix-tape” tracklist of contestants, band members, and the houseband’s favorite songs, which you can then buy from MSN.com’s service. You also can vote for your favorite performer online, as well as by phone. During this week, viewers were actually able to vote which songs contestants would sing, from a list of four per singer.

    3. No INXS songs. Even though it served all of its purposes in season 1, I couldn’t help but be a bit bored by performances of these songs, mostly because I didn’t know them. I understand that this was partially done so I could get to know them, and that people who once liked INXS would probably like them, but I didn’t. Because Supernova doesn’t have any previously recorded songs, the people in the bottom three pick which songs they’re going to sing for survival. I’m not exactly sure at what point they pick their songs or rehearse with the house band, but it always comes off great.

    4. Zayra Alvarez. This woman could easily go under the “Bad” column, but I’m gonna count her as “so bad it’s good”. She’s not bad in a William Hung way though. Zayra is what Bjork would be if she were a Latin music performer. She obviously never stood a chance of becoming the lead singer for this band, yet she somehow managed to escape elimination twice… I think because the band thought she’d make good TV, and they knew they’d kick her off eventually. Watch for yourself here. The best ones are Razorblade, and 8675-309. Trust me when I tell you that you have never seen anything on TV like it. Whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing is up in the air, but at the very least, it’s incredibly compelling TV.

    5. The job to be won is a much more difficult one. Becoming the new lead singer for INXS is tough, no doubt. But you’ve already been given a blueprint and a catalogue of songs to work with. Here, not only will you be creating your own original sound and direction for the band, but the winner is also going to have to hold his own with these three incredibly charismatic musicians, something that INXS didn’t have. Thus the competition is harder and therefore makes for better TV.

    The Bad
    1. Brooke Burke. I really hate to say it, cause she’s freakin gorgeous, but she’s got no personality this year. Not that she was amazing last year, but she had some life to her. This year, it’s like she forgot how to read over the summer, then started learning again, just in time for the new season. Complete lack of energy, enthusiasm, and sincerity. Come back old Brooke.

    2. “ROCKER”. I hate this word. I hate hate hate hate hate this word. I hate the fact that it supposedly stands for individuality and anti-authority, but has become both a stereotype and a tool of the man. When American Idol took it and used it as their own word…. exclusively using it to refer to two or three people, rather than calling them singers, it got to me. It reminds me of how the wrestler A.J. Styles in TNA has to be referred to at all times as “The Phenomenal” A.J. styles. Or how wrestlers in WWE are ALWAYS referred to as “Superstars” and not wrestlers. Not only is it lumping all the singers into one stereotype, but they’re using the same word over and over again. I swear I heard the word “rocker” used 4 times in the first five minutes last week. Seriously, I know you’re trying to prove yourself as the anti-Idol, but get a damn thesaurus, and make the script sound a little more natural. Looking on the website, “Rockers” actually has a capital “R” because, obviously, it’s a proper noun.

    3. The SAME songs. They have changed it up a bit, but for every “Zombie” by The Cranberries, there’s a “We are the Champions”. How many times must I hear “Creep”, or the four overplayed combined hits of Jefferson Airplane and Janis Joplin. Does Nirvana really deserve to have had eight performances of their songs? And if i have to hear Interstate Love Song, Bring Me to Life, or Cult of Personality one more time, I’m totally going to illegally download the Supernova CD instead of buying it. And I’ll convince all my friends to download it instead of buying it as well. That’ll show them. It’s just like stealing from them, but I deserve it for having to sit through repeats. Please, more songs like “Starman”, “One Headlight”, and “Helter Skelter”.

    4. Tommy Lee acting like a sleazebag. I guess it’s hard for him not to, but come on. Grow up.

    5. Dave hasn’t played guitar yet. Granted, there still four weeks to go I think, but it’s about time we see him show off his guitar chops and see if the singers can keep up.

    6. Enough with the voting info. I understand the need to make it clear to the audience, but it’s way too much to give me the info 15 times in an hourlong show.

    As far as contestants go, I’d say that last years group was stronger, but I can’t really remember anyone other than the top six. We’re still at seven right now, so I’m sure that with two more weeks of showing off and getting better, the top five could probably match last years top five. After all, I wasn’t the biggest fan of last years top two, instead liking 3rd-6th place a lot more. This year’s group is a little more hard-edge with the obligatory tattoos and piercings than last years was and that’s for good reason, because the band and its music is more that style. While Mig had last year’s breakout performance with this song, so far there have been at least two really memorable performances this one and this one, both by Ryan Star. His “smoldering intensity” might just be enough to get him to the finals, and as he’s due to sing an original song this week, we’ll see how far his skill set goes. Even if the top six aren’t better than last year, whoever makes the top three has the potential to surpass the IXS top three. It’s all a matter of whoever has the better single, which, in my opinion is why J.D. Fortune won last year.

    ***½

    What I’ve seen of this year’s Rockstar: Supernova show gets a 3.5 star rating by showing constant improvement, a willingness to be different, and the potential to give the band a really tough choice when it comes to the top three. If only Brooke Burke would be able to stop using the word “Rocker”.

  • The Ubiquitousness of Nic Cage



    I honestly think I’d rather see LUKE Cage than Nic Cage right now.

    Right now Nicolas Cage is everywhere. It’s hard to turn on the TV and not see his long, thin mug. At the moment, he’s got two movies out… The Ant Bully, and World Trade Center, in which he adds a creepy moustache to his physical repertoire. He’s been doing interviews galore, “waxing philosophical” if you will, about the September 11th melodrama, and the merits of “storytelling about history” as opposed to “entertainment”. Not that he doesn’t have a point at all, and I’ve heard mostly good things about the movie, but his pompous attitude is enough to make you wonder what Tom Cruise and Ben Affleck are doing at the moment. But I just gotta say thank God he no longer has the moustache. It’s been replaced though, with this long, straggly hair, that I can’t find the picture of right now but might have to do with one of his next movies, or maybe he’s taken on some work as an old-age Elvis impersonator.

    But in case his grandstanding, pompous interviews for “WTC” weren’t enough, I just started seeing commercials for his NEXT movie, a sure-to-be crappy remake of a terribly over-dramatic British suspense-“horror” movie from the seventies, called The Wicker Man. Now, I’ve seen the original, and I have a feeling that audiences are going to loooooove this movie, because there’s nothing that Americans find scarier than a bunch of pagans dancing around a May-pole with masks on. OOOOOOH. Don’t worry. If you haven’t yet seen the commercial, I’m sure you will soon enough, and over and over again. It will be in movie theatres in about three weeks. By all counts, Nicolas Cage could have three movies out at one time. Who does this guy think he is? Will Ferrell?

    You’d think three movies at once would be enough. It probably isn’t, because I’d be willing to make a bet that when you go see The Wicker Man, you’ll probably see the new trailer for Ghost Rider, Cage’s “been in production for five years” superhero movie about a guy who rides around on a skull-and-bones motorcycle fighting the brooding neighbor from American Beauty. It’s directed by the guy who did Daredevil, and wrote Jack Frost and Big Bully. Okay, so the guy also wrote Grumpy Old Men, and did that Simon Birch movie, but citing them does not suit my needs. Ghost Rider is due in February.

    The point is this: I am sick of seeing and hearing Nicolas Cage. I don’t hate the guy. I do know people that do, but I happen to like Matchstick Men, Adaptation, the first half of Snake Eyes, The Rock, and theoretically Face/Off, Con Air, The Weather Man, and Raising Arizona. Lord of War was alright, but he’s been in his share of bad movies too… really bad movies. The thing is, he can be really grating when you’re over-exposed to him. When he’s all over the place. And it just seems to be getting worse.

    One movie in 2004, two in 2005, three in 2006, four on the slate for 2007, and already four on the slate for 2008. Next up after Ghost Rider, is appropriately titled, Next. After that, Time to Kill, and of course the “obligatory” National Treasure 2… I guess the founding fathers didn’t bury all of their treasure in New York… or they had two treasures. In any case, there goes Washington never telling a lie.

    *½

    The ubiquitousness of Nic Cage gets two stars because I am fed up with seeing him all over the place. It could be worse though, and the movies that Cage is doing aren’t all that terrible. I would much rather see more entertaining and versatile actors appearing in 5 major movies a year.

  • Empty Bookshelf’s First 100 Reviews


    Oh, those kids. Always at it. You guys really shouldn’t’ve.

    So here we are at the first of what may be a few reviews of our first milestone, 100 reviews. Not only is this the first review of this milestone, but of what could be very many milestones. We here at the Bookshelf like the word “milestone“, and don’t believe in Thesauruses. So here we go, our first hundred in a nutshell.

    The first actual review happened way back in October of 2005… remember that time before the Steelers won the superbowl, before “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” movie, before Dick Cheny accidentally shot his friend while hunting, and before Bristol, United Kingdom celebrated the 200th birthday of Isambard Kingdom Brunel (actually April 9) by relighting the Clifton Suspension Bridge?

    Dan’s first review was aimed at complaining about post-game hype surrounding an extremely long baseball game. Of course our readers probably care about boring Astros-Braves baseball games as much as they seemed to care about my terrible review of the dictionary. Even though that picture was good, it was nowhere near the five star quality of this image. I too tried my hand at reviewing food, but it was an utter failure. On the plus side, my review of the letter to the editor is one of my favorites, and my first review actually got eight comments, including this link. The few following that grilled cheese review focused mostly on music, my opinion of “Good Night, and Good Luck”, a particular episode of Trading Spouses, and Dan’s opinion of My opinion of “Good Night, and Good Luck”. Dan also said that the Colbert report wouldn’t last, which seems to have been proven false.

    October seemed to be us finding our footing.
    ***

    November saw Dan’s Cleveland Trifecta, a diatribe against horses, a road that he liked, an episode of “Coach“, and his complaints about how much he aches, now that he’s an old man. I started the month strong with the Beth review, but struggled through the rest of it, with lame reviews like Thursday, a type of tooth”paste” that doesn’t work for me, and an insightful, yet completely unnecessary complaint about my nosebleeds. My FAO Schwarz review kinda made up for them, but the highlight of the month involved Dan and I sparring about how Christmas is coming earlier every year, and something about me being a time-traveling sheep.

    November didn’t see much improvement over October, but the Christmas stuff was entertaining.
    ***½

    December got a bit better, even with a few less reviews. I busted out the old NES games, for a few reviews that I swear are not trying to copy off of XE, another personal favorite, Christmas Cards, Adam’s first review, Dan throwing the hate down on Pitchfork media, and a surprising amount of people commenting on Roger Ebert’s take on video games. The biggest advance in December was the pop-ins, that added some clarity to our parentheses-obsessed-writing.

    December was a highly engaging and entertaining month, even with only nine reviews.
    ****½

    2006 rolled around, and January saw Dan get political, review half of a book, not like warm winters a lot. I only contributed three of ten reviews that month, but all three of them were relatively alright, mostly because “Where In Time is Carmen Sandiego“, and “The Simpsons” after season 9 is so easy to complain about.

    January’s topics fell off a little.
    ***½

    February, while being the shortest month, was also a monster for us, as far as number goes. A whopping twenty-one reviews. To be fair, 17 of them came in our envelope-pushing live superbowl reviews, the biggest stunt pulled in the history of reviewing anything and everything on a five star scale. The only other reviews of any substance were my Gauntlet Review of the Beatles albums, and Dan’s digging up of our one-issue underground high-school newspaper.

    Despite the big stunt, and two good reviews, February was kinda lacking.
    **½

    March just plain sucked. Four reviews total. One by me. Three mega–reviews by Dan.

    ½

    April was slightly better, with another of my top five of my reviews, Legacy of the Wizard. The other four I would give an average of 3 stars to, but since there were only four during the month, that’s going to cancel out the Legacy of the Wizard bonus and take it down a half star.

    **½

    For my money, May was our best month yet. Dan’s contribution was the lengthy three-part TV landscape review. I threw out quality stuff with my Songs for Silverman, and Degree Navigator reviews. The shorter American Dreamz and Da Vinci Code video game reviews were serviceable, but my immense LOST season 2 review tops everything.

    *****

    June fell off a bit. Four reviews total. Split two and two. Mine were based on a ridiculous news story, and anger at other people for coincidentally coming up with the same ideas as me. Dan tried to put everything into perspective by seeing how well the entire history of human ingenuity and artistry stacked up in the interstellar community, and complained a little about how the national geography of roadways isn’t designed to suit his needs.

    **

    July was filled with the (I gotta admit my ignorance as to the relevance of this phrase… and wikipedia does nothing to help) Navel Gazing set. I was had for a few minutes by a Jimmy Kimmel hoax, and I thought the critics were a little too harsh on Shyamalan. Despite the mediocre numbers for the month, I’d give it a 3.5

    ***½

    This gives us a per-month average of 3 stars, which isn’t too shabby.

    In my first ever review, I reviewed the concept of this website. I claimed that we wouldn’t be able to keep it fresh, that we’d run out of ideas, and that we wouldn’t be able to stay somewhat funny at least. I believe my exact quote was “It has the potential to provide hours of entertainment for readers, and shape their lives for years to come. However, the downside is that it could get old real soon, and provide us with nothing but an excuse not to get real jobs.”

    Well, I think we’ve significantly proven wrong every single point that I just brought up. We have 29 categories, 19 subcategories, and even two sub-sub categories. We’re still writing about reasonably different things, and while we may have slacked on the funny in recent months, we still bring the ‘A’ game on occasion. As far as my quote goes, I’d be willing to bet that we’ve provided maybe a few hours of entertainment for a handful of people, which probably did nothing to shape their lives for even the near future. On the upside, it hasn’t gotten old, and we have gotten real-ish jobs.

    For all of these reasons, I’m willing to up our star rating by half a star, over the average rating of 3. I’ve also realized that my method of calculating the rating might not be the best, so I’m gonna throw in another half star for a final rating of 4 stars out of five.

    ****

    And for those of you playing along at home, yes, this technically is the 100th review and so therefore should be included. This review receives 3 stars for not having much to offer in the way of witty musings, and for having a faulty overall rating method, but for packing so many subjects and links into one review.

    ***

  • Navel Gazing Part 2: Sneakers as Temporal Landmarks

    Now that is a triple-word-score $5 title!(all ridiculousness aside, stick with me, I’ll explain what I mean by that later. I really couldn’t think of a more condensed name for the concept.)

    Those that know me and read the website (I’d wager the two are almost mutually exclusive — except for the ragtag bunch of misfits that Nate drags in) know that my Youth was marked by complete, abnormal interest in a variety of subjects. I’m not sure of the exact order, but it went something like this: dinosaurs, space, birds, Star Wars, airliners, fighter jets, and what I’ve sort of landed on now, computers and cars. That’s all well and good as it could be, and until very recently (yesterday, to be exact), I thought these phases were the be all and end all of “where I was” at a particular time, the landmarks (or buoys) on to which everything in my past had been tied. As in, when I’d page through my old, binding-suffering-because-of-overuse copy of Audubon’s Field Guide to North American Birds (1994 edition, of course), I’d remember X, Y, Z that happened around that time. Same thing when looking through my old space books, the binders I put together about airplanes, my dinosaur toys, etc, etc. I had thought that those were it for “way back when.” I think the reason for thinking in these terms is that each stage stands alone as a very discrete point in time. I can’t put my finger on exactly when I was interested in airplanes, but it was after such-and-such and before other such-and-such. Obviously, this isn’t how life goes, it’s rare for there to be a finite and complete “end” to something. Sure, I still remember bits and pieces from each “stage,” but I’m not usually adding more to whatever it is that I know and remember about each. I hadn’t put much thought to it, but these academic pursuits really only have memories about the particular subject associated with them: sitting in the cold, convincing myself that I was always just one more roll of film away from taking a picture good enough for Birder’s World with my crappy camera, and on and on. That’s the sort of thing I remember when I look through my old bird books. That’s all well and good, but as I’m looking at it now, I must not have been a very interesting kid, only remembering things related to these rather niche interests. So that leads us into yesterday.

    aj12
    Oh, the memories. Sort of.

    I have a bit of a soft spot for sneakers; my Oakley Twitch review might’ve shown that, but being that I limit my purchases to the shoe in question, it’s quite under control. Recently, the Nike Free 5.0‘s have intrigued me. I have one pair of what I’ll call not-sitting-around sneakers, so I definitely don’t need these new sneakers, but I think they look nifty, and having tried them on, they’re very comfortable in their own, unique way (just like Nike would have you believe). So, this sneaker-centric internet browsing led to a corner of the internet I knew existed but didn’t realize quite how serious they were. The sneakerheads/shoeheads. All things considered, that’s fine. There’s no better place than the internet to complain about how “Nike’s reissue strategy really screws over the collectors because they claim a colorway will be limited, then change the packaging and sell it to everyone.” God bless the internet. Anyway. All this led me to this exact page, a history of all the Air Jordans. At first, there’s little significance there, I’ve never owned a pair of Air Jordans, they were way out of what my mom decided my sneaker price range was and by the time I was buying sneakers myself, they were still way too expensive, and more importantly, I wasn’t really into basketball sneakers anymore. But where this comes together is how big a deal sneakers were for elementary and middle school boys (that’s not a universal thing, but consider it a blanket statement). Looking through the list of Air Jordan’s, the first ones I remember as being “the new ones” were the Air Jordan 5’s, released in 1990. I was 8, but I can remember who the first person I knew that had them and how much I wanted them. I remember seeing the kids wear them for intramural basketball games at the East Side Youth Center, and on and on. And these aren’t people or things I’ve even thought of since then, way back in 1990. Oddly enough, going through the rest of the Air Jordan’s up until 1996’s Air Jordan 12. I had no intention of purchasing a pair then or now, but I remember talking about the new colors that would come out every month or so with my more athletic-minded friends at the time, many people I hadn’t thought about since then (until randomly looking at pictures of sneakers online), and oddly enough, the first time I really thought about the interior details of my middle school, something I thought I had forgotten since the day of my 8th grade “graduation.”

    It goes on and on, looking at any of the high profile sneakers from 1990-1997, lots of stuff I didn’t realize I remembered. But it ends there in 1996/1997. Sneakers after that don’t elicit anything. I thought about it for a while, and I realized why. That’s when simple things like sneakers were phased out by a more serious interest in music. Like anyone “young,” I had always enjoyed TV, movies, and Top 40 radio, but around 1996/1997 (14 or so years old) most everyone has had a couple serious years acquiring his or her own personal taste in music. Before that point, oddly enough, sneakers provide those “temporal landmarks,” but after that time, it’s really music that reminds me in that same way. Of course it’s not just music, there are all sorts of “touch points for memories:” textures, smells/scents, pretty much anything, even the way a Chevrolet Lumina’s steering wheel feels. But none of this is news to anyone, we’re all simply interested in different things at different times in our lives. I had sneakers, but I’m sure other guys (and girls) have video game “sponsored” memories (I have some of those, mainly from being at friends’ houses, what with my mom associating video games with some sort of figurative devil) or memories when you find a Goosebumps book in the basement of your house.

    ***½

    Navel Gazing Part 2: Sneakers as Temporal Landmarks receives three-and-a-half stars due to its main point’s obviousness as the review went on. The hyper-ambitious title perhaps hinted at possibilities left unanswered and avenues unexplored. Also, I’m a firm believer in sneakers being the ultimate artifact of contemporary design for point in time (heck, look at that Air Jordan overview, and see how the shoes from the early 90’s, with their neon colors, which were the new hotness™ way back when — my goal for the too many pairs of Oakley shoes I have is that they’ll be a bit more long-lasting in terms of style), and I’ve not touched on that concept one bit above.

  • The Critical To-Do over Lady in the Water


    The cast of the movie Miami Vice hard at work

    If you keep tabs on the movie world, you’re probably aware that right now, two sort of big deal stories are going on between critics and directors. The first one involves Joel Siegel making a big to-do and walking out on a screening of Clerks 2, and then being called out by Kevin Smith on the Opie and Anthony radio show. Interestingly enough, Smith’s going to be filling in for Roger Ebert on the “Ebert and Roeper” show this weekend. The second one is a little more high-profile, mostly because the movie’s director is a little more mainstream.

    M. Night Shyamalan’s new movie “Lady in the Water” was released into the wild this past Friday, and was met with mostly bad reviews. Strike that; terrible reviews. Strike even that: Reviews that not only claimed that the movie was bad, but “a charmless, unscary, fatuous and largely incoherent fairy tale“, or “idiotic, contrived, amateurish or sub-mental… [and] pretentious, paralyzing twaddle” among other things. The movie pretty much received pans across the board, with rottentomatoes counting only 28 “positive” reviews out of 130 total, with nearly all of the major papers/writers, Variety, Entertainment Weekly, and in probably the best-written of all of them, Roger Ebert’s MAMMOTH Mega-Review, completely tearing the movie apart.

    Movies get bad reviews all the time though. Just look at the 15 percent that Little Man got on Rottentomatoes, or the 20 percent that You, Me and Dupree got. The difference in these reviews though is that they’re written about the movies themselves. They’re not out there angrily insulting the Wayanses, or whoever was behind the latest Owen Wilson vehicle.

    With such terribly scorching reviews claiming that Shyamalan has basically declared himself a god, and that this movie is the “biggest ego-trip” ever devoted to celluloid, I was terribly worried about going to see it. But you know what? I enjoyed it. I didn’t take any of it seriously, because I knew that much of it would involve highly elaborate mythology that was quite silly. I didn’t care though. The movie looked good, was well-acted, and paced well for what was written, which by proxy means that it was directed well. Was it written well? That’s a matter of opinion, and usually that opinion is no. I’d say it’s serviceable while watching it, but the more you think about it, the worse it gets. Ignoring the overelaborate mythology for a second, there’s the way most all of the characters are said to have a specific purpose, and I guess that’s true to an extent, if you count being a red-herring, or standing around watching something as purposes. There are a lot of characters and they are diverse, and so in order to get their personas across in such a short time, he uses some stereotypes, which I don’t mind, but seems to be another cause for the death sentence he’s being handed. To me, the worst part of the writing was the obnoxiously expositional way that the “mythology” was told to the main character and how easily he and the rest of the people in the apartment complex believe it. Yes there are flaws, but while you’re watching it, it’s for the most part an enjoyable film. I’d give it two and a half stars, out of five.

    It seems though that the only person who really shares my sentiment is the guy from the Boston Globe. Everyone else seems to be caught up in this M. Night-hating party that’s all the trend. It’s one thing to criticize the movie, but they’re taking aim straight at him for being a complete egomaniac who won’t listen to other people’s ideas and who presents himself as a savior. What’s their basis for these accusations?

    Well, first of all, there’s this book that some guy wrote about why Touchstone Pictures (read:Disney) didn’t want to make this movie unless changes were made. Supposedly he refused to make the changes and they walked away, leading him to go to Warner, where they let him have free reign. Secondly, he likes to cast himself in his movies. That’s not a secret. People who thought he was full of it for casting himself in the role he had in Signs will probably be even angrier at this role. It’s not the size of the role that seems to be bothering critics though; it’s the importance of it. He’s cast himself as the person whom the Lady has come to see, whom she’s come to inspire to write a great piece of literature that will cause a great change in the world. Critics have seen this as the ultimate sign of messianic aspirations.

    What angers them the most though is the idea that he had the guts to throw in a character who’s a movie critic. He’s cold and unfeeling, snooty, likes to talk about annoying movie conventions, and (this isn’t much of a spoiler because it’s been talked about and the character isn’t important anyway) he dies.

    My take on the whole thing is “Why should I care about this book?”. This goes for both the people who put it out, and the reviewers who care to bring it up in every review. They see the book as being a publicity stunt for the movie, and not the possibility that the book people might want to put it out when the movie comes out as a publicity stunt FOR THE BOOK. Even if it was the case, I don’t see why these movie critics chose to review him instead of his film. When “War of the Worlds” came out, critics didn’t say anything about Tom Cruise’s shenanigans. In fact, they all liked the movie, even though the story was terrible and had more plotholes than both Lady in the Water and The Village combined.

    As far as casting himself goes, I don’t mind. I find his acting completely fine for the roles he’s cast himself in. He’s usually cast himself in inconsequential parts, and in his most emotional role in Signs, he was perfectly serious and brooding. His delivery seemed natural and all. In this movie, I understand the reasons why they’d think that he was full of himself for putting himself in the role that he was in. But he was perfectly capable in the part. When he wrote it, he knew that he was going to be playing a fictional version of himself, or maybe how he seems himself. But criticizing him for doing this is like complaining about Eminem in 8 Mile, or Woody Allen in that movie with “Humphrey Bogart”. Acting-wise they could do a lot worse, and any no-name actor would’ve been just as good.

    As far as the last issue, I actually agree with the critics. The character is useless in serving the story, except to provide some “wink wink”-type moments meant to criticize both the lack of originality in movies, and the pretentiousness of movie critics. At the same time however, the criticisms that the character has of movies seem to all appear in the film. Examples include characters talking aloud to themselves (ironically, this is done by the critic himself, when confronted with an angry creature), “seemingly unimportant” characters actually being “important“, and the climax taking place in a rain storm. He’s simultaneously written himself into a corner AND been brilliant about it. It’s as if halfway through it he realized that plot elements were too convenient, and so he needed a way to say “I know that that these things are too cliche”. While I understand the character’s “purpose” in the story, it would’ve been better off had he decided to either fix the story issues, or get take the character out entirely. The critic is basically the lazy way out.

    I guess my thought about the whole thing is that with such bad reviews, I figured I’d be squirming at how terrible it was, or want to walk out on it, or rip my ticket up out of anger. I didn’t, and I think that for critics to go this ballistic is unnecessary, especially attacking the director, and not the movie itself.

    For the amount of complaining that everyone does about how there is nothing new and unique that ever gets a big release, or all the gratingly bad horror movies, or Wayans Brothers projects that keep coming out, M. Night is ALWAYS putting out something different and unique. People should at least give him credit for attempting something like this, even if there were majorly unresolved story issues.

    *½

    The critics’ response to Lady in The Water gets one and a half stars for having a few legitimate issues with the movie to complain about, but instead opting to attack the director for off-screen dealings and the role he’s cast himself in, never mind about whether he was a capable actor in the role. I think that critics should spend more of their time vocally ripping apart terrible movies instead of mediocre ones.

  • Ken Jenning’s Letter to Jeopardy


    Aren’t they the happy couple?

    I saw a link to this on the interweb, and I figured I’d pass it along and thinly disguise it as a review. Ken Jennings has written a letter to Jeopardy offering suggestions on how to update the show. It’s Hi-Larious. I’m not joking. We’re talking “Daily Show“-funny. I understand that some of it will only be understood by people who watch the show, but still, it’s a great read. I especially love the part about the Clue Crew. I wonder if the rest of his blog is this good.

    *****
    Five stars.

  • The Last 40 Minutes of that Jimmy Kimmel Repeat that was on Last Week

    Update… I found the entire Kevin Spacey Charlie Rose show that I mention later in the article. Thank goodness for Google Video


    Not even the Emerald Rake of Jimmy’s hot, Mexican gardener Phillippe Rogriguez could save him from the horrific fake snake attack!

    I was flipping through the channels last night after watching the replay of the “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” episodes that were on, and I happened to somehow, get stuck on the Jimmy Kimmel Show. I’ve only watched the show a few times; once cause they were going to have a fictional character from the LOST universe on, someone that isn’t on the series, nor ever mentioned, save for the peripheral websites that are part of the LOST story machine, and I wanted to see how they were going to pull it off. I also think the segments where they show TV clips but bleep out words to make things sound dirty is clever and entertaining.

    What kept me watching, though, was the fact that they had an animal trainer on the show. Having an animal guy on is usually a sign that they’re hard-up for guests, but these segments are always incredibly entertaining, especially Jack Hanna when he’s on Letterman, or on the old Tonight Show. This is mostly because they bring on exotic animals and kinda let them roam around, and you can see all the madcap antics that they get into, and the host usually gets all flustered. The thing is, they’re usually relegated to the middle of show, to bridge the gap between the top guest and the musical act, and in this case the animal guy was the first guest. I figured that they must’ve been really strapped for celebs because it’s the middle of summer, and it’s the Jimmy Kimmel show, so I didn’t think much of it.

    So this guy brings out some vulture of some sort and he’s showing off, there was probably another animal in there somewhere but I got up to do something or another. Next thing I know, they’re bringing out this huge crate with a blanket over it, and there’s a guy who has one of those long sticks with the ring on it that dog catchers use on TV shows to catch dogs…. kinda looks like that women’s hair tool they used to advertise called the topsy-twirl or something. Anyway, they take the top off, and there is this ENORMOUS snake in it. I have no idea why they’d ever take the top off, even if they had it around the collar thing, because it was freakin pissed off. It was moving around in attack mode, and it started letting out this loud rattling noise. You and I know that when a snake does that, you back away and probably run, because it’s just like MR. T saying “Don’t mess with me, FOO”, and giving you that glare; you want to have nothing to do with it. I guess Jimmy Kimmel, though, doesn’t know, because he moved closer to the snake, but still behind his desk, and said “what does that sound mean?”, and as he was asking it, the snake, as fast as lightning, springs at him and bites his hand. There’s a whole lot of cursing, and they bring out the trained EMT crew. The audience doesn’t know what to think. Everyone’s treating this totally seriously, and I’m thinking that at any minute they could show that this whole thing is a joke. But they bring out the stretcher, put Kimmel on it, and give him an oxygen mask, and wheel him out to the ambulance. The whole time he’s cursing and pissed off, and everyone is genuinely concerned, especially the audience. The cameras are shooting in a plausible manner, with what would be a wireless steadycam operator following him out, and they fade to black as the segment ends. You can watch the video here

    And I’m sitting there wondering whether what I saw was real, or some Andy Kaufman-esque joke. Completely stunned. When they come back from break, it’s obvious that this new section has been planned because of the way the camera is cutting means it would’ve been pre-taped and edited together later, his sweat from the fever is terribly fake looking, and not only has the band followed him to the room, but they also brought their instruments for some reason. Yes, that’s right; Jimmy’s going to do the rest of the show from his hospital bed. In fact, his first guest is some supporting role on Grey’s Anatomy, and is dressed in full doctor scrubs, and the audience seems to have re-appeared once into the conversation, and they’re laughing. Jimmy and the guy have a terrible interview, where they spend the entire thing talking about how he went to Hawaii and a Don Ho concert, and then finish with him cattle-roping the Mexican guy that Kimmel keeps around for laughs.

    The next guest also is from Grey’s Anatomy, and I realize that this must’ve been after the season finale. They have an even worse interview which causes me to leave the room, but leave the sound up in case something interesting does happen. And it sort of does. You see, “hidden” the whole time via hospital curtain is Jimmy’s roommate, and coincidentally, the musical guest, Ben Lee, an Australian guy who’s got some fun songs and has been on tour and put out an EP with Ben Folds. Somehow I’ve actually managed to see him twice, once opening for Folds, and once opening for a They Might Be Giants free show at Cornell. Anyway, he plays his semi-hit, “Catch my Disease” (HA! It’s a hospital. Get it?!”) from his hospital bed, and then they reveal that it’s on the Grey’s Anatomy soundtrack which you can buy at Jimmykimmel.com or some similar website.

    I turned it off after that, but according to the wikipedia page, the snake actually talked over the end credits. No clue what it said. There’s no doubt in my mind that the whole thing was planned, but how’d they know that the snake would lunge at him and not actually bite him… or did it actually bite him and they gave him the medical attention he needed? I highly doubt the second one for insurance reasons.

    No doubt that this was one of the most interesting and ambitious ideas for a late-night talk show to try to pull off, at least that I’ve seen, and it seems along the lines of what I eventually wanted to do with my own college TV show back in the day, but never did. The problem was that everything after that animal/snake bite segment was incredibly awkward, unfunny, or boring…. with the exception of the musical performance, and that just seemed kinda silly. The fact that there were two distinct tones to the snake-bite segments completely threw everything off, and for as captivated as I was by the actual bite bit, the hospital bit was completely uncomfortable before the actual interviews. They were trying to make wisecracks while keeping the “this is completely serious… other than the soap-opera-style camerawork/editing” tone. Not only that, but the “jokes” were completely morbid, with one of the band guys playing the funeral song as he was walking out. That there was no audience laughter also made it weird. It’s funny how you’re annoyed by the laughing until it’s gone, and then you realize that they need it to hide how bad the show really is. I think they were just a little confused as to what direction they wanted to go with the bit and decided to split the difference, to little success.

    They got the left-overs of the guests from Grey’s Anatomy too, no doubt, as all the other big stars were probably doing Leno…. maybe Letterman if they were in NY. And I understand the reasoning behind not talking exclusively about the show, because that would alienate viewers like me who could care less about Grey’s Anatomy. Here’s the thing though, if you’re gonna talk about something other than the show, at least make it interesting. Tell a funny story, a humorous observation about something. If you’re not funny, I’m sure you might have something interesting to tell about something that happened behind the scenes that people who don’t care about the show might still find interesting. If all else fails, talk about your past experiences, but make it stuff that viewers might want to listen to. I don’t care to hear a few words about how you learned how to do cattle roping, but it was more interesting than a story about how you saw Don Ho perform, or how you were on an episode of the Cosby show but have no real stories about it. If you’re gonna talk about cattle-roping tell me how you got interested in it. I think that spending five minutes on one topic is a lot more interesting than one minute each on five different topics.

    Not to get off the subject too much, but the other night, I sat and watched Charlie Rose on PBS do an hour-long interview with Kevin Spacey, and was captivated the entire time by stories about where he came from and where he’s going, relationships he’s had with other celebrities, and an extensive section on the revitalizing of a theatre in London, that he’s now the artistic director of. They spent all of 4 minutes probably, talking about Superman. Now I really could care less about British theatre, and would love to hear more about Superman, but because of how much detail and how serious the conversation was, I was glued to the screen, listening about how the British theatre was different and something called a Panto, and how it’s the top money-making theatre style in England. Now, I’m not saying that Jimmy Kimmel is anywhere near the same league as Charlie Rose, or that “Random Doctor A” is as good of a storyteller as Kevin Spacey, but just pick one interesting topic and stay with it, that’s all. Heck, I saw Topher Grace spend an entire interview once talking about how great the movie “Wild Wild West” was when he wasn’t even in it and instead was supposed to be talking about some other movie he was in. It was fantastic, just because of how enthusiastic he was, and how much time they devoted to it. It wasn’t like a laundry list of you did this and this and this.

    Something that also bugs me about Jimmy Kimmel Live in general is just how over-the-top this show will go to get the audience from ABC’s primetime shows. Sure, Letterman has the Survivor-types on, and Leno has probably had the Will and Grace and Friends casts on, but this is different. This is a show that went to the site of the Superbowl (Detroit) to do their show from, after the game was over (also shown on ABC). This is the show that sent Kimmel to the set of LOST during the first season to shoot a terribly unfunny segment that was actually included on the LOST Season 1 DVD. This is the show that did an entire Academy Awards show to pull from that show’s audience (also shown on ABC). This week is all shameless promotion for ESPN’s ESPY awards show. I’m reminded of the UPN 9 news teases for the nights that WWE Smackdown was on. I’ve never seen so many “news” stories that involved wrestling, backyard violence, or half-naked women, all of which, of course were held until the end of the show to make us keep watching.

    But back to the topic at hand. The show really succeeded at pulling one over on us, or at least making us consider that it actually could be real. I’m still wondering how they managed to fake the snake bite part, knowing that the snake would lunge at him but not bite him, or if it actually did bite him and he just got the medical attention.

    The problem was that they held on to the idea of “putting one over on us” for just a bit too long, or at least in the wrong way, resulting in a terribly confusing and awkward stretch of about five minutes. I’m sure that the interviews were no worse than other interviews on the show, especially the ones with really low-grade celebs. The interviews are also about ten times better than Last Call with Carson Daly, a show that is so uncomfortable to watch, that it makes Kimmel look like a regular Johnny Carson, so I guess it’s not the worst thing I could be watching.

    Overall, I admire the idea, and I can’t wait to see how they top it when “Snakes on a Plane” opens.

    **

    Two stars for making the snake bite segment so convincing that part of me actually believed that it could be real, and for the ingenuity to link together the animal trainer, the Grey’s Anatomy guests, and the musical act in such a creative fashion. Also I enjoyed listening to the performance at the end of the show, even if it was a bit silly. Points off for two incredibly boring interviews that actually made me get up and leave, for not making me laugh once, even on the inside, and for making the bit with him being taken into the hospital so strange and awkward, and nothing at all like the rest of the show.

    Just a P.S. Now that I watched it again on youtube, I realize that it could very well not have even been a real snake, and that would be the reason that the guy had it on the stick. That guy with the stick could’ve been moving it. You tricky people you.

  • Navel Gazing Part 1: A History of Violence

    Once again, the generous sponsorship of the Fruit Stand/DVD store made this review possible. Be sure to stop by and enjoy a 50% discount if you’re not American!

    I’ve said I don’t enjoy writing movie reviews, so I’ll try to skirt around specifically “reviewing” the movie in that exact term, but it’ll be tough considering the movie is intertwined with its message.

    Usually when someone goes out of his or her way to create something “deep,” “thought-provoking,” “challenging” or the like, the final product doesn’t end up being any of those things, if only because if it draws too much attention that goal (“deepness”) instead of the movie itself. It’s incestuous, but I’ll link here to my review of Inside Man with my brief commentary on its very out-of-continuity “thought-provoking” scene of the seemingly vicious bank robber being disgusted by a Grand Theft Auto-look-alike. A History of Violence practically begs for over-analysis starting with its vague but simultaneously pointed title. The director, David Cronenberg, is very much on the record talking about the philosophical issues raised by his movie.

    I Violenced Your History!
    All That You Can’t Leave Behind. (bonus points for invoking a U2 song in a faux-deep manner!)

    Most “deep” movies become grossly over-analyzed, with the arguers forgetting what the movie was about and what happened in it (or what the movie wasn’t about and what didn’t happen it””Donnie Darko fans, I’m looking in your direction). Throw in some psycho-babble (“Munich was about how Israel became self-actualized in the 1970’s and 80’s”), and you’re good to go. Without putting it terms of whether it was a good movie or not, Munich certainly had enough going on it to not need this over-analysis. (Okay, to be fair, some people have complained that not much of anything happened in the movie, other than Eric Bana sweating like a maniac when he was getting his pump on.) Oddly enough, “A History of Violence” needs this discussion; not a whole lot happens in the movie; it could basically be considered an immediate and direct sequel to Goodfellas. (I liked A History of Violence enough that I won’t ruin the “how” and “why” that lingers throughout the story for our readership, but if you’ve seen Goodfellas, you’ll understand what I mean about it being the next step in the Goodfellas story.)

    Sure, plenty happens in A History of Violence, but the characters spend so little time onscreen reflecting on it; the extent is really “how long have you lied to me? And did I marry your past or just an identity you arbitrarily created?” The viewers are in the same position as the characters after the open-ended conclusion of the movie. Like the characters, the viewers are asking themselves, “What’s in me? What am I capable of if something needed to be done?” “Would I be able to leave behind my “

  • The First Annual Shenzhen Film Festival

    First off, let me thank the Fruit Stand/DVD and CD Store that helped subsidize this festival. Without their 10RMB (that’s ~$1.25) rate for DVDs, none of this would have been possible. Obviously, they’re taking a monetary loss for the free advertising I promised them in exchange for being the exclusive supplier.

    Most film festivals have some sort of theme, sometimes something “cinematical” such as “new wave directors,” sometimes geographical. Given the current circumstances, let’s say the theme was geographical, as in movies made by the US. (To be honest, the second choice was funded by European money, but it’s an American franchise as far as I’m concerned, even if the movie took place in London and had only one American star.

    Film Festival
    It was a lot like this… except it was summer, in a hotel room, and instead of the crowd it was just me.

    American Psycho opened the film festival, a movie I had not seen since its theatrical run in 2000. At the risk of this mini-review being too mini, I’ll say that the slasher elements of the second half of the movie are considerably less interesting than the earlier sections, establishing the main character as more of a “ridiculous” crazy than “crazy” crazy. It’s a bit of a cop-out, but it’s safe to say that the movie is polarizing, and those that would like it have probably already seen it and those that would not like it won’t have their minds changed, nor ever watch it, especially because of this mini-review. I won’t waste my time convincing people to see the movie by describing it, so I’ll leave with how I’m glad that the setting for the movie (and the book on which it was based) was the 1980’s. Placing it in 2000 would have dated it too much, not allowing such wonderfully absurd setpieces as the Huey Lewis monologue. It only works because of how we remember Huey Lewis (and later, Genesis); had it been placed in 2000, the movie would not have aged well as it did not have the benefit of hindsight in picking songs that could serve as a “soundtrack of the era.” Very good movie. If you haven’t seen it for a while, let me recommend a repeat viewing.

    Basic Instinct 2: Risk Addiction. I’ll make the title its own sentence, if only to draw attention to itself. Yep, it’s that bad. In simplest terms, if I fall asleep during an “erotic thriller,” it’s neither very erotic or thrilling. Out like a light, and this was in the mid-afternoon. “Twists and turns”, blah blah blah, and I just didn’t care about how it ended. It’s odd to see a movie seem so right with making London look as non-American and modern as it supposedly is, and showing off enough contemporary modern design to serve as a timecapsule for the mid-2000’s, but have absolutely nothing going for it beyond that. Bad writing, all but unrecognizable actors in the non Sharon Stone roles, and, again, the power to put me to sleep. And I don’t fall asleep during movies. No good.

    I’ve never seen all of a Spike Lee movie before, and at this point, not all of his movies are about racial issues or whatever is stereotypically thought of as being his “topics.” The final movie, Inside Man, was very much a a “robbery movie” where the details of the “heist” are more interesting than what is being robbed and the grisly cop (Denzel Washington) and the too cool for the room robber (Clive Owen) share a manly man moment of bonding, realizing they have something in common but are on opposite sides of the law. I guess putting it in those terms sort of cheapens it, and that’s not fair. Movies like this are always this close to leaving the audience feeling manipulated instead of surprised by the (again) “twists and turns,” but everything in the movie seems plausible enough as its happening, though it’s probably not the best movie to think about after the fact. It’s pure hype to call the movie “unlike any heist movie you’ve ever seen!” being that that quote references the fact that an important plot point is that the robbers seemingly aren’t stealing anything, but instead have some other goal in mind. The quote makes it sound like it’s something new and different, but it’s been done (not to take anything away from the movie, though). I mentioned the part about Spike Lee, and I guess that makes it so I had some unfair preconceived expectations, but when the little kid has a moment with the head robber and the robber is disgusted at the Grand Theft Auto look-alike he’s playing, it’s not exactly subtle social commentary. Similarly, the very obvious moment of a Sikh employee of the bank getting hustled by the police for being an Arab isn’t left at that; a line is later delivered about how ‘Sikh’s aren’t Arabs’, in case anyone had missed the direct scene minutes earlier. Likewise, and I say this more as a joke than anything, but I couldn’t help but notice that the true bad guy in the movie was an aristocratic white guy… Anyway, consider this movie highly recommended. A word of warning though: I’m not one to really care much about movie soundtracks or “scores,” but the one in this movie was just plain awful, drawing attention to itself at all the inopportune moments.

    ***½

    The First Annual Shenzhen Film Festival receives three-and-a-half stars, as the opening movie was a “safe” choice, being that I had seen it before and the middle pick managed to put me to sleep. Of course, the final selection brought everything back together and left the audience wondering when the next Shenzhen Film Festival would be held. Also, minus some points because I’ve realized I don’t really like writing movie reviews, no matter how brief.

    IWRY

  • My Frequent Stabs at Highway Planning

    I’m no Civil Engineer, but I’d like to think of myself as a Monday Morning Traffic Planner. Some people have football; I have traffic jams. I don’t think of myself as an impatient person; it’s just that I hate indirect routes, especially within cities. I also think highways should be endless straight lines with no changes in altitude or direction. In fact, I think roads in cities should all be highways, too. You say, how would this work? I say, it would all cater to me.

    traffic
    Bring. It. On.

    It’s be very simple. Roads would be paved to connect points to which I frequently travel. I don’t need a highway to get to Wawa or the supermarket, but for anything over 3/4 of a mile, it’s the highway or the, uh, no-way. Longer trips simple involve longer new highways.

    Well, there isn’t much more to it than that. When sitting in the car on a yet another long trip to a familiar destination, I’ve come up with some more details.

    • Obviously, there’d be no speed limits. Well, none for me at least. Imagine going 100mph with nothing to worry about because the road is perfectly straight and perfectly flat. It’s top speed cruising the whole time.
    • I’ve realized that other people might find use for the roads, even if the exits are only at my frequent destinations at one end and my house at the other. Everyone can use the roads, but I have to approve them first. They also have to pay a toll. To me.
    • All the roads would be named after me.

      • Among many others there would be:

    • The Dan Fuller East-Side / South-Side Expressway
    • The Fuller Cross-Country Thoroughfare (stopping in Evanston, IL)
    • The Dan Fuller Media to Concordville Extension
    • The Allentown to Bear Creek Highway
    • The DF (a highway connecting Media and Allentown)
    • The Dan Fuller Honorarium Bao-An to Industrial Zone 7 Overpass
    • and on and on…

    Obviously, a very good idea.

    ****

    My Frequent Stabs at Highway Planning receive four hopeful stars because of how much more useful the highway system would be when it would cater exactly (and only) to my needs. Unfortunately, part of my “frequent stabs” involves thinking about how much money it would take to enact such a plan, but unfortunately, I don’t think there’s a number that big, and I’m stuck with yet another half-invented idea.