Empty Bookshelf Reviews

It's been a while since we've posted... I know.


To put it simply, Cloverfield is effin' scary. I would venture as far as to say that it was the most viscerally affecting movie I've seen since Children of Men. This isn't just a monster movie; it's a movie, that, like The Mist and I Am Legend before it, plays on our greatest unthought-of fear, that something so disastrous could happen that all manner of government protection would be rendered moot. Mass chaos with no way out, and nothing to keep you alive but your own strength of will in circumstances that you'd never imagine yourself in. Cloverfield is so effective at what it sets out to do, reminding us that our modern "civilized" society is one catastrophic event away from being reduced to nothing more than bickering people who've been taken over by primitive "fight or flight" survival instincts.

The way the reviewers have talked about it, I'm sure you've all heard complaints ad nauseum about the "lack of story", the "unlikeablility" of characters, the illogical choices made by certain people, and that it didn't make sense for someone to keep recording through the whole thing. Honestly, I didn't care about any of those things at all, and it's a testament to how involving the movie is that I only once stopped to think about the fact that a camera battery wouldn't last as long it does, and only one other time to think about how long it would take them to walk in a subway tunnel the distance that they said they did. Despite the rich, hipster vibe that the characters exuded, I didn't really find them all that grating, even though it was basically as if Godzilla interrupted an episode of Felicity (with good reason; both the executive producer and the director were co-creators of that show). If they indeed go ahead with a sequel to be shot in the same style, telling a different story from the same night, I would love to see people from the opposite end of the spectrum and how they managed, how different their priorities were, and just how they would differ in their actions in general.

More often than not though, I found myself sitting in my chair, with my mouth wide open, totally enraptured by what was going on. Would I too be able to climb across a roof of a forty-story building that was leaning at a sixty degree angle from the ground, only being held up by the building next to it? Would I have gone back to save someone from a giant killer spider-crab in a pitch black subway tunnel? Why was this monster movie the first one that ever made me question the lengths I would go to survive? As intense as it was, The Mist, never made me feel this way, despite the fact that the subject material was quite similar. In my opinion, it goes to media theorist Marshall McLuhan's statement from his book "Understanding Media:Extensions of Man", that "The Medium is the Message". To put a very long and convoluted series of the oftentimes contradictory thoughts by a raving Canadian lunatic into a simplistic summary, the method by which a message is sent from one person to another is oftentimes more important to the delivery than the message itself. The best example of this is the famed Nixon-Kennedy debate where the majority of radio listeners seemed to think that Nixon had won, while the television viewers, able to see Nixon's body language, sweating, and poor make-up job, were convinced that Kennedy won. On a side note, I always wondered if the people who did that study took into account the differences in politics between the people who listened and people who watched, and if that played into their answers to the question.

How this idea of medium applies to Cloverfield is that we've been programmed with the language of film over the past one-hundred years. Even if we aren't aware of it, we've come to expect a certain syntax. We don't notice it though, until a reverse angle of a shot doesn't match, or an edit isn't smooth. The Mist lives by these rules, and the whole time it tries to invoke this question of "what happens when the world goes to hell?", while also playing it like a 1950s B-horror movie creature feature. Issues with the unfocused nature of the plot set aside, it's the fact that the movie's presented in the language of Film that makes you step back and realize how preposterous the story really is.

Ironically, it's the movie inspired by the crude and incredibly repetitive Godzilla series that has effectively transcended this medium and broken out of the box, leaving genuine lasting emotion. The same way that we've been trained to understand that movies aren't real and that we shouldn't feel anguish when Jason Vorhees, "an unstoppable killing machine", hacks someone up with a machete, we've been trained to recognize video as infallible. Which affects you more: watching an alien pop out of someone's chest killing them in a movie, or watching a video of a skateboarder falling fifty feet to a hard wooden surface and seeing his shoes explode, but then being able to walk off, relatively unharmed? We haven't yet learned to apply the same reality filters to video that we currently do to film, and this is what Cloverfield exploits.

No matter how many times you try to tell yourself this movie isn't real, the medium that the message is delivered in contradicts your thoughts and plays to your instincts. What would happen if you took this movie over to undeveloped parts of Africa (as McLuhan puts it, a place where people have not been "immunized" to this medium) or if someone years down the line saw this without the context to put it in? It's very likely that they might think it actually happened, especially if they've seen the 2001 attack footage. Critics (used literally, not film critics) of the movie have been saying that it exploits September 11th imagery, but I would argue that it successfully uses those scenes we have committed to memory to scare us in a very real way, much more than any slasher flick or monster movie has done before. Maybe it's the fact that I've been spending a large amount of time in the area that was directly affected in the movie. It's more likely that I was less able to discern the difference between the two because when the twin towers fell I was watching it on a movie screen in a film auditorium. Watching Cloverfield, it was hard not to think back to this moment and relate the two, drawing all that emotion out.

One of the most harrowing scenes in the whole thing is the destruction of the Brooklyn Bridge, which I've walked over a few times. It may very well be the most frightening destruction of a major landmark ever to be created in a movie, far scarier than anything in the modern classic Independence Day or its red-headed step-brother The Day After Tomorrow, completely because of its realism and the point of view of the person delivering the message.

Here's where the debate rages though. Should a movie be judged on how effective it is at making you feel a certain way, or on the quality of story and characters? If it uses the story and characters as well as technically impressive work to achieve this emotional effect (such as in I Am Legend), then it's obvious that it's a good movie. What happens though, when the two aren't mutually exclusive, when character development and a tight story take second chair to exceptional method and incredibly well-realized scenes? Is it still a good movie? This isn't to say that Cloverfield offered no cohesive story or successful characterizations (the realism in the actors' portrayals " not so much film acting, but moreso being in the situation with a natural intensity that you would expect of someone living out this unthinkable scenario""certainly drives the moments and carries the film as much as the technique), but it's a chase movie in the most basic sense. Something's attacking, nobody knows what it is, but we're running from it. There's really nothing more to it than that, and I would be hard-pressed to say the movie had an effective story to tell, instead opting to give you a few character dynamics and letting them provide the motivation for an hour's worth of recorded events. I've heard completely mixed reviews from friends and film critics in regards to this movie, and it seems as though this question of how to judge is where the basic disagreement lies. For me, the movie was incredibly effective at what it set out to do, and was plenty enjoyable from start to finish (and I loved the epic "Cloverfield Theme" that scored the credits) and that's all I can ask for in a threatrical experience.

One last thing. If in my diatribe about the presentation of the movie I left out the success of The Blair Witch Project, which this movie couldn't have come about without, it was because that was not a successful movie. Where the difference between the two films lies is that while The Blair Witch created a very real found-footage aura, it was overly-long and for the most part, boring and whiny. Think about it. The bulk of the movie was about kids wandering around the woods and arguing with each other. It took on the found-footage medium and while it succeeded at creating a realistic portrayal of what one might look like (as in "normal people are generally boring and spend a lot of time fighting and talking about nothing at all"), it completely failed as entertainment for all but about 15 minutes. It had a few interesting story elements, but needed to pad out its runtime with lame characterizations and nothing really happening. It was also completely visually uninteresting, giving you nothing to fall back on when you got tired of all the complaining going on onscreen. Cloverfield takes a look at the mistakes of this film and basically imports action movie beats into the style in order to fix its problems, never stopping to let us take a breath or think about all the implausibilities. The people behind this movie have brilliantly created a hybrid "found-footage/blockbuster action movie" medium, and by doing this, it skews our perception of its events, leaving our common sense to duke it out with our basic media instincts, and that is why it truly succeeds.



Cloverfield is not only a genre-redefining movie, but a medium redefining movie that uses the language of video and film together to confuse our perception of events. You know it isn't real, but once it wraps you up in its swift pace, that notion leaves your mind, making the horror of the scenario all the more genuine. The entire group of people involved were committed to making you believe that this had really happened, and they succeeded admirably at doing it. Now next time, give us some better characters and a more plausible story arc for them.

While I'm at it....

The Mist

I really wanted to love it, but it completely tears itself in two directions, trying to be a giant killer insect horror movie, and a bold statement on how far our civility falls when we're presented with dire circumstances. Not only that but characters are either underused (Andre Braugher) or completely over-the-top crazy (Marcia Gay Harden), and though Tom Jane gives a strong performance (before he brings it on a little too strong at the end) he can't keep down all my hatred for the main antagonist, the crazy religious nut-job who wants everyone to repent or die. If it's supposed to be allegory, it takes a very ham-fisted approach that really turned me off. Subtlety isn't this movie's strong point. Visually, it's spectacular, but unfortunately a great premise is undermined by story issues, probably stemming from the source material. Much like most of the movie, the end sort of rips off of "Night of the Living Dead" in its painful irony, though it may have one of the best "downer" endings I've seen in a long time.

I Am Legend

Visually, the most realistically drastic transformation of any actual location that I've ever seen put to film, I Am Legend decides to "show" us, and not "tell" us about the collapse of humanity, unlike The Mist . By that I mean that while the previous movie spends its time preaching to you about how everyone will turn on one another to survive, this movie shows the result of that, in a devastatingly real fashion. You are left to create your own account of how it all went down, only giving us brief glimpses into society's fall in flashbacks that serve more to develop Will Smith's character's personal story. It was completely refreshing to see a movie that doesn't give you every detail and leaves some things open to the imagination. Will Smith's character and portrayal are perfectly subtle in the ways that his past, his loneliness, and his obsession with curing the sick have taken its toll on his sanity, but the critics are correct that unfortunately all of this strong set-up seems to devolve with about twenty-five minutes left into some more action-oriented, less suspenseful version of Signs, right down to the "oh, it all makes sense now, God has a plan for me" revelation. I Am Legend is a completely haunting vision of what life would be like if you were the last person on earth, Zombie storylines aside.

The best way to make a video game accessible to lots of people is this: make the first few levels pretty simple, and then have them get exponentially harder. Sure, you say, most video games follow this pattern. Mario, Tetris. Sonic the Hedgehog" Ducktales is pretty easy throughout, but that's mostly because the levels are built more as challenging mazes, and you can choose the order in which you want to play them. Don't get me started on Legacy of the Wizard... I've already written 2000 words about that.

I can't think of a better example of this than the little-known game, BigNose the caveman, which came as a gold-colored cartridge. The main focus of the game was to walk from left to right on the screen and beat up dinosaurs. I really can't remember if there was a story or not, mostly because I never got very far. I mean, the first two levels are exceptionally easy, to lure you in. They were actually pretty similar to the Mario model, with bad guys coming at you that you had to hit as you walked on the horizon line and jumped over random cliffs. That was something I always wondered about in the Mario world. How can there be so many cliffs on a piece of developed land that don't have bridges built over them? The Princess' father must not have been doing a good job in the public works sector. As far as BigNose, well, they barely had the technology to build a wheel, so I'm going to assume that bridges are way out of their league. ( And for all you cavemen out there, I'm not trying to insult you" the last thing I need are commercials disparaging our fine little rarely-updated enterprise)



Strangely enough, though, most of the dinosaurs BigNose encounters are pygmy dinos, with stegosauruseses and triceratopseses no bigger than the eponymous caveman himself. Sure there are giant dinos that appear at the end of major levels, as bosses, but most of them, from as far as I got, were usually seen as just two legs or something. They were way too big. Someone obviously didn't consult the AMNH before designing this stuff.
If you think about it even more, you realize that there's no reason for a stegosaur to attack a caveman anyway, unless he was intruding on its nest. Maybe it's different with mini-stegosaurs though.

The simple attack was using your club to hit the bad guy, and if you picked up some stones you could use them like the fireflower power in Mario, only lamer, cause the stones don't bounce, and if you miss, they kinda just magically fell through the ground. The hard part is getting the timing right. If you swing too soon, you miss, and too late, you're hit by the dinosaur, which is why stones are the best option, especially since there are some dinos that need to be hit twice. Jumping over them is always an option, but you can't jump very high, so sometimes you'll miss. There are also potions you can buy at some stores that you can use to regain life or kill everything in the frame, making it easy to beat a boss.

Really though, the biggest challenge to this game was actually getting it to work. Maybe it was my system, or just the cheapness of the people who made the cartridge, but it never worked right. I had to do the blowing on the game, then blowing in the Nintendo thing that every kid my age was quite accomplished at. You'd think we'd all be harmonica players. At some point, even that began to not work, and the game would only work if I used the game genie as a buffer.

The music was actually really catchy, even though I can't remember any of it now.

Overall, the first few levels are moderately enjoyable. The next few are too frustrating. And there's no continue or save option, so once you lose, you start all over again. I'd say the same thing about Mario, except there's plenty of opportunity for extra lives and level-skipping in that game. That, and you had some sort of goal to achieve in Mario. If you really want to play a game about cavemen, I'd settle for a Turbo Graphx-16, or an emulator for its games, and Bonk's Adventure.



One and a half stars for making me feel like I was good at video games, and then tearing that dream away from me. Relatively good music, but a premise that was pretty much just a terrible rip-off of Bonk's Adventure.

A few weeks ago, I happened upon this article on EW, briefly discussing the merits of cookies designed with illustrations of the best actor and best actress nominees for this year's Academy Awards. I found it a little peculiar, but didn't really think too much about it, until the next day when I walked past the cupcake and cookies store on the main floor of the building I work at. In the window I happened to see the images of the actors, and remembered seeing them on the EW website. I went in to check out the cookies (they've done the same sugar screening thing on the top of the cupcake icing too, which i think is creepier), and found that you could buy them in a sixteen pack box set for a mere 56 dollars. For those of you who aren't hip to the mathematics, that's 3.50 a cookie. You can check out images of the packs here
Now I don't know about you all, but unless it's giant, or some combination of lobster, truffles, filet mignon, and gold, i'm not paying $3.50 for a single cookie. Especially one that's about the same size and type as the Girlscout shortbread cookies ("trefoils" for those of you pagans out there). But then again, I've never eaten cookies that taste like Will Smith.

I get that there are people out there who make a lot more money than I do (especially in NYC), and can afford to purchase extravagant items like this for their Oscar party. I would even argue collectibility, except for the fact that the cookies would totally deteriorate in a not-so-long amount of time. Here's what I don't get: At what point does somebody have so much money that his/her sense of worth gets skewed so that they don't have an issue with buying 16 small cookies for 56 dollars? What makes this whole thing all the more preposterous is that on the Saturday before the awards, they were being sold at half price. Of course, the people there were talking up the "You can buy both sets" deal, but that just goes to show how much the price was jacked up to begin with. And are people really THAT into the Academy Awards? Do people have parties for a five-hour-long, and not particularly entertaining show that lasts until 1 in the a.m? On a Sunday? Is there some prestige earned by purchasing these cookies for your elaborate party? Maybe, but I think that if you went and bought some cheap but vastly more delicious cookies and gift wrapped them yourself, that you'd probably have more. "Ah", you say. "But they wouldn't have Peter O'Toole's mouthwatering face on them". And to this I say, "I think I've just proven my point".



I'll give them one star for the work that went into creating images of people to put on their cookies, and the fact that anything cookie-related can't be all bad. Hey, if they were free, I'd totally eat them. But they wouldn't last long... especially 56 dollars worth of time. That and I don't find it particularly appetizing to eat a cookie with Helen Mirren on it. Now if they were Razzie awards cookies, filled with raspberry jam.... that might be different.

This might be my last traditional review of the year, considering we're nearing the end of 2006. In this last month of the year, everybody likes to see best and worst of the year lists, so be prepared to be bombarded with those for the next few weeks, culminating with my Top 10 Lists of the Year. Ooooh meta-humor.






Imagine, if you will, if Jurassic Park were a TV show. Wouldn't that be exciting? Dinosaurs running around, tearing up each other and people, and all kinds of exciting action week after week. You could have park rangers dealing with all of the problems of running a park for dinosaurs, getting eaten while trying to feed them. I can't really think of any good storylines, but this is dinosaurs and people in the same environment! This is like the holy grail of excitement... unless you count the Flintstones, and that horrible movie "Carnosaur"... god that was bad

So when I heard about this show, Prehistoric Park, that's on Animal Planet (originally, it was made for British television, but I would bet that they had a deal with American TV before it was made for funding purposes), I just had to check it out. I was completely let down. There I am with my bowl of popcorn and my dino-pajamas, waiting to see an action-packed hour of dino-tainment, and I'm bored to tears. Why?

Well, "Prehistoric Park" is a documentary about an animal preserve where the curator goes back in time through some sort of timecube or stargate:atlantis or something and brings the dinosaurs back to his park, where he doesn't do anything except keep them in pens and watch their health. That's not entirely true. The last episode had a large "plot" involving saber-toothed tiger husbandry. You heard me. As a documentary on this completely real place, and the fact that it's been made for educational purposes, obviously the main point is to tell us all about the behavior of these dinosaurs and how to medically and behaviorally care for them. And that's about as exciting, as say, a documentary on real tiger husbandry, and who would really care about that?

I've boiled the conceptual problems down to three areas: First of all, since this park is entirely real (it is a documentary after all) are we to believe that these people have never seen or heard of Jurassic Park? You would think that if you were planning a dinosaur island theme park, Jurassic Park would probably be the first place you would look to do research. And you would realize that no matter how safely you think your T-Rex is kept, it's not. Rule number 1 about having an island dinosaur preserve" No T-Rexes. Even if you have your giant electrical fences or in the case of Prehistoric Park, just giant wooden fences,he T-Rex is gonna get out. If we learned one thing from "The Lost World", it's that San Diego is not prepared for a T-Rex attack. (granted, that was pre-9/11, but I seriously doubt that the D.H.S. has a plan for dinosaur attacks). I understand that it's very unlikely and that The Lost World was a movie, but this is a documentary, so you'd think these Palienticians would be more responsible. They're just as bad as Cartographers

Secondly, haven't they ever seen a time-travel movie? In fact there was one that came out about a year or so ago called "A Sound of Thunder" that dealt specifically to going back to the time of dinosaurs and hunting them. When the wrong ones ended up shot, the future (present) was entirely changed. Who knows, they could be abducting the dinosaur that brought their great-great-great etc grandparents together creating a time paradox that could rip apart the space-time continuum. Even if that didn't happen, think of the change to the animal food chain, what with humans being knocked down a notch... granted, there are a few too many Canadians for my taste. But still, that doesn't sound like something I want happening on my watch. You people are supposed to be responsible scientists; get your act together.

For my third point, I have a confession to make. While this show is presented as a documentary, I've recently been informed that it really isn't and that it's just presented that way to tell you boring information about dinosaur life that you never had any desire to know. This doesn't make any sense to me. Nobody was ever around when dinosaurs lived. How do we know that there weren't McDino-lds walk-throughs, or that specific plants made certain dinos sick. The only evidence we have is bones, and some eggs. Everything in this show is presented so seriously that we automatically take every single word for fact. It's like if the croc hunter went after velociraptors instead of stingrays". well the result would still be the same either way. Anyway, they could really tell us anything about dinosaurs (say they all wore blue hats, drank horse urine, and were the largest exporter of human pubis in the world) and we'd believe them.


I always liked learning about dinosaurs because there were so many different kinds, all with their own special features and fighting styles. I wanted to see them fight each other and stuff like all kids do. This show totally de-mystifies the whole dinosaur idea, basically showing us the medical side of running a dinosaur theme park, and unless you're one of the few people who are interested in paleo-veteranary-zoology you'll be as completely bored as I was.


The concept of "Prehistoric Park" gets one star due to having a good idea to start off with and completely wasting it. This show is like watching people oil and polish Transformers instead of letting them do what they do best: shoot laser beams.

I guess I just don't understand the point. U2 needed a single for their approximately fifth greatest hits collection. Rather than come up with a really good song themselves, they enlisted the help of a band that while good, just doesn't seem like the right fit with U2: Green Day. Not that Green Day can't play, but the two bands' styles are just a little too different to mesh collectively, not unlike that time where about 16 different musicians got up onstage at the Grammys and butchered Lennon/McCartney's "Across the Universe". Paul's probably rolling in his grave. "twice


Getting back to the matter at hand, they decided to make their newest hit something for the people in New Orleans . Instead of going the traditional route involving thoughtful lyrics about the condition of the area, or people's struggles, they decided that the second half of the song should consist of the phrase "The Saints are Coming", repteated over and over and over again, in a musical phrase that has definitely been taken from somewhere that I can't quite place. They chose to debut this song at the reopening of the Superdome, for the Saints-Falcons Monday night game a few weeks ago, and it works perfectly as an opening theme song for the football team during games. I can't imagine, however, that this song is going to be remembered at all in even one year's time, and that's a shame considering that this is all that two of the most prolific bands of the last 15 years could come up with. It's almost like they weren't trying.

They could very well have been trying something new though. This could be the start of product placement within the music industry. Well, I guess that's not new" but maybe actually using the songs on the radio to promote something. It would be like the Eagles writing a song about how great the Philadelphia Eagles are, to get them pumped up, or AC DC writing a song for the Chargers (HA!), or Bad Company writing a song called "Bad Company" and using it at Enron meetings (BA-ZING).

And isn't Bono's thing Africa , anyway? Why didn't they use the power of song to put together a group to raise funds for Africa ". Oh wait" I forgot" Well, why didn't they do it again? A world-renowned, self-appointed ambassador to a far-off and underprivileged continent can't be taking time away from that to help another cause, especially one that's been nigh on forgotten by most of the world ( You know you're lost in your own logic when you can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not). I mean, you don't see Brangelina Polie out there helping America 's homeless people, or fighting drug abuse, or all the millions of issues people here face every day. And that's because they have character. They know that if they multi-task, not only do run the risk of reducing the importance of their cause, but they also reduce the importance of other, more useless celebrities. By doing double duty (I said Doody!... I guess that doesn't work as well when typed out) when it comes to activism, you're the one putting Rob Scheider out of a job. It's on your head Bono.

What was I talking about? Oh, this dumb song. Like I said, it may be good for the football team, but call me cold; I don't really care about the Saints. It was nice to see them play well, but not nice enough for me to listen to an awful song that could've been better.



One star for trying to bring some attention back to New Orleans , and making a song that they'll be playing forever at Saints games. Minus four stars for making the rest of us listen to it, and possibly starting a trend of individually-made rock songs for a specific sports team. The last thing we need is a re-made version of "Benny and the Jets" about New York's lesser football squad. We already have to deal with that annoying J-E-T-S cheer. That should be enough.

A few days ago I read that Turner is going back through their catalogue of old Hanna Barbara cartoons to remove all intimations of smoking. First of all, I'm not really sure how they're going to do this. I undestand that if they can take the cops' guns away in ET and replace them with walkie talkies, they can pretty much do anything, and with 5 color animations they can do it easier I'd assume. But the question isn't the technical ability. The question is the context of the situations and how they're going to make them make sense to people. Granted there is a valid point with making sure that kids aren't starting to smoke because they see Quickdraw McGraw or Snagglepuss doing it. After all, I'm sure the only reason that kids buy Fruity Pebbles is because Fred Flintstone does, right? But should the works of the past be censored because of semi-questionable content? Disney will NEVER let Song of the South see the light of day because of some supposed racial issues with the movie. But how are we supposed to remember what things were like when these cartoons were made, unless we're able to see them. Being a gatekeeper is one thing, but erasing history is another. And who are all these kids who are watching Hanna Barbara cartoons anyway? It's not like you can even watch these cartoons unless you have the Boomerang channel which may not even exist anymore. Kids today are more interested in watching fake anime and Pokeymans than anything else. Where are the robots that change into things? Or the magical cats from far off planets? I'm getting away from my point.

Today they discovered that Pluto isn't a planet. Once and for all. The thing is, these are planetarians saying this. I would expect these sort of mistakes from a cartographer (the study of uncharted lands), but these people are studying something more important, the whole solar system. What are we all supposed to do? Go back to the science books that we had during that brief period when Pluto wasn't a planet last time? Actually, knowing my school district, they probably still use those books. Next thing you know, we're going to be told we never had to wear those stupid glasses to look at an eclipse... like these "cool kids". Seriously, I could understand the decision if it really meant something. But what's the point of this change, except to make trouble for anyone who's ever learned that Pluto is a planet. Whoever was pushing for this is on notice!



People should really worry about changing things that matter to the masses, or will cause trouble if they're not changed. In the case of the cartoons, censoring for kids is one thing, but not allowing people to ever see these cartoons the way they were originally made is a disservice to the people who made them in the first place. Kids should listen to their parents and not cartoons anyway.

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 chese 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.




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 suprising amount of people commenting on Roger Ebert's take on video games. The biggest advance in December was the pop-ins, that added added some clarity to our parentheses-obsessed-writing.

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




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.




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.




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





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.





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 Davinci 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 Shayamalan. Despite the mediocre numbers for the month, I'd give it a 3.5




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 fututre. 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.

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.



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.

WOW. That's all I have to say. Actually there is a lot more to say. Going into the city the other day, I was kinda skeptical of what I was going to be doing. I was dropped off, by bus, into the most consumer-based part of the city, probably even the east coast, or even the country, on the most consumer-driven weekend of the year, with three women. After going to a plethora of stores that I really didn't want to spend as much time in as we did, but were interesting nonetheless, we walked about sixteen blocks, to the corner of 58th St. and 5th Ave. The FAO Schwarz Store. It was packed. A little more packed than I bargained for. So packed, if fact, that there was a line that went halfway down the block, just to get in, guarded by employees dressed like toy soldiers. They said it was going to be a 20-25 minute wait to get in, and I grumbled as we got in line. Even though we didn't really have anything to do for the rest of the day, I was wondering if it was worth a wait like that. Yes. It was. In fact, it took little more than 10 minutes to get into the store, which was remarkable considering the length of the line.

Inside we found three floors that just kept going and going. First floor had stuffed animals. Any kind. Lifesized elephants and giraffes, cows and hippos. They also had smaller sized stuffed animals, like lifesized german sheperds. It also housed a vintage toy collection, and a glass case with extravant upgrades of old favorites, such as a gold slinky and gem studded Mickey Mouse-headed Pez dispensers. There was also a candy section, complete with gummi pythons (over 3 feet of gummi), and an old-fashioned ice cream parlor.

Downstairs was home to puzzle toys, action figures, video games, something called the Street Surfboard or thereabouts, and pretty much anything that you could have stations set up to demonstrate. They had an expert teaching kids the skateboard thing, a guy who could solve a rubik's cube in under one minute and thirty seconds (to brag a bit, about 5 years ago, I could solve it in about that time, but he was a bit more personable with the people than I could ever be, and he was obviously more skilled than I could ever be), and all kinds of other fun stuff. It did kinda get me angry when the rich mother in her fur coat was asking her 5 year old son which 3,000 dollar Star Wars collectable ship model he wanted(a similar one), maybe not realizing that he was totally gonna treat it like a 40 dollar toy and not a 3,000 piece of art.

Going up to the third floor, I was blown away by the amount of stuff once again. There were the guys doing the show on the floor piano, a ridiculous doll section, with men (it is NY) sewing doll clothes and using some mini bedazzler to put sequins on them. There was a case with all these old school-looking barbie dolls, that actually smelled like the flavor associated with the color of their dress. As you kept walking, there was this glass encased platform about 8 feet high, where, if you were younger than 8, and presumably a girl, you could go and dance with a woman who was made up to be a princess of some sort. Not that I'm an eight-year-old girl and was really into this, but the amount of effort that went into this section of the store was amazing. Around the corner was the boys section, filled with an erea where you could design your own hot wheels car. There was some VR type thing, more car-related toys, and some completely drivable mini cars, ranging from a $12,000 mini-one seater audi to a $40,000, two seater, 7 foot long, mini hummer-type vehicle< , with an all-weather fiberglass body with a protective frame, rack-and-pinion steering, dual hydraulic disk brakes, a manual emergency brake, full front and rear suspension, and a three-speed transmission. You can buy one online here, if you like. There was also rare toy room where people could buy and sell really old collectible toys. Again, most were really expensive.

And even when we were walking out we passed whole sections on the top floor that we hadn't seen before, and there were just so many people out doing demonstrations of toys, inventors of toys there to sign them, and people there just to get the kids involved.

All in all, the store did an incredible job of providing an experience that a kid would never forget, getting them to not only say, "I want this", but creating a bond between the kid and the toy to make them want it even more. It was at least five times as impressive as the Times Square Toys R Us, which I think was about five stories tall, and there was plenty to see and do, enough that it would take at least an hour and a half just to see everything there, without actually spending time to take it all in. The only downside was that it was so crowded with kids, but what else would you expect?



The NYC FAO Schwarz Store gets five stars due to the vast amount of things to see and do, the incredible amount of effort put into selling toys and creating an experience that children won't forget, and along with that, an incredibly successful way to sell toys. The only negative aspect was the incredible amount of people there, but that could hardly be deemed the store's fault, and they did an admirable job of keeping the amount of people reasonably under control with the line system. Well worth the short wait to get in.

This review is the final installment of the Cleveland Trifecta

A programming note: Being that one of the goals of this site is to avoid becoming a "rant blog," I'll apologize for my three most recent reviews. (Those two links are only coincidentally related to computer topics -- they're on the first page of google results for "rant blog." You guys strike me as the type that check your 'external page links' section of your log analyzer, so that's why you're getting some hits from this crazy, random site) Upon deciding to review a collection of three Cleveland-related things, I didn't realize that even though I was planning on negative reviews, my opinions weren't creatively negative. There's nothing wrong with negativity, but unfortunately, the way that the Cleveland items were bad was more in the "disappointed" way than the "this sucks more than anything has ever sucked before" way. So, with that in mind, on to the last Cleveland-related review.



With a ridiculous name like "The Cleveland Marriot Downtown at Key Center," I should've known something was up. I have exceedingly low expectations when it comes to hotels. I'm even less of a snob about hotels/motels than I am about restaurants, and the fact that I consider hotels and motels to be in the same category should let everyone know how I go about choosing lodging. Just like the ChopHouse & Brewery, prices were high and because of that, so were my expectations. There was a special group discount rate due to the eye show, but due to the fact that it was very much in the middle of "metropolitan" Cleveland, and was (at least superficially) rather fancy, I had high expectations, as I'm sure that the Marriot expects that of their customers.

Even though work paid for the stay, I'm still hesistant to even spend someone else's money for a hotel over $75/night, much less the Marriot's $160. Much of that price is due to the fact that, again, it's in the middle of downtown, but still, it's Cleveland. In all fairness to the hotel, I'm not really the target market; I travel on "business," but I'm still rather cheap thrifty, so I'm not the type to rave about the quality of the food brought by room service, if only for the fact that I could never justify spending that sort of money to eat-in (or out, for that matter). Regardless, whether or not I'm part of the "target market," I was staying at (deep breath) The Cleveland Marriot Downtown at Key Center.

The Key Center is one of the modern-looking skyscrapers that I talked about in my review of Cleveland, and the "Marriot Downtown" is, obviously, a hotel that occupies a fair amount of space of this skyscraper (It's a Cleveland-sized skyscraper, so 57 floors, not anything really big but still tall enough to make you dizzy when looking up at it from the ground.

The hotel itself had doormen, a concierge, and all of that fancy stuff, so again, even though I wasn't really planning on using those services, I can't hold it against the hotel for offering them. My room was on the 15th floor, facing the lake (and Browns Stadium), so the view was nice, but being that I was there for work, it's not like I really spent that much time in the room, anyway (again, not the hotel's fault). The bed had about 10 pillows of pretty much every shape and size (apparently, an obscene amount of pillows is par for the course in "fancier" hotels these days), and the bed was comfortable, but not Tempurapedic comfortable, but no hotels have beds that nice, anyway.

At this point, I guess I'm really just reviewing this hotel based on how much better $160/night is compared to ~$70/night. Having stayed at a hotel in that latter price point a couple weeks earlier, I was expecting more and better, beyond the convenience of not having to commute to/from the hotel to the convention center. I guess it's been said that the more expensive hotels are, the more you have to pay for conveniences. The $70 hotel offered both wired and wireless internet access for free, while The Cleveland Marriot Downtown at Key Center offered a free "demo" of TV-based internet, and of course, the "demo" simply said "It's the Internet -- On Your TV!!! Only $9.95 per day!!!" Wired and wireless access were also $9.95 per day. I guess it's a matter of the "businessmen" that need an internet connection will pay for it, even if it's $19.95 per day, but it strikes me as cheap. Is that the only complaint I have about the hotel, no free internet access? Well, I didn't end up buying it any of the days, but it definitely would have made my job simpler, as some doctors had questions about content on the website and so on.



The Cleveland Marriot Downtown at Key Center receives three stars due to the fact that even though it was rather pricey, they skimped on the fact that if they consider themselves to be the "business traveller's destination" (my words, their insinuation), most all business travellers have some sort of need for an internet connection, and charging for it on top of a rather high daily rate only serves to make the hotel look cheap, not accomodating. Also, perhaps even more damningly, that insufferable dropping of the "the" in The Cleveland Marriot Downtown at (where's the "THE?!") Key Center" and the fact that they always include "The" at the beginning really grinds my gears.