ICFR No. 3 'Darkest Hour:' Assumptions v. electric sharks!

When I walked out of "The Happening" in 2008, I promised myself that no one could ever make a movie so flat yet full of unlikeable or bland characters.

Well, "The Darkest Hour" has crushed my hopes.

As Elvis Costello once said, "I just don't know where to begin."

Sean (Emile Hirsch) is a douchebag. He and his douchey friend Ben ("The Social Network"'s Max Minghella) go to Russia to sell a cell phone app but have their dreams squandered. But who cares? They still have the money to go party it up with some girls at a bar. The girls are just as douchey. You go to a bar in Russia and order a drink and the bartender only speaks Russian. Their reaction: "Does anyone speak Russian??"

Assholes.

But Sean rules the group, calling his new found lady-friend a dick, later calling his best friend an asshole, etc. etc. But my biggest issue with the character is an issue with the writer as well. When the "aliens" start "attacking," Sean discovers he has the ability to make wild assumptions that just happen to be true, much to the chagrin of Ben, who play like a sidekick on an infomercial.

"Sean! You're saying these beings are sentient and are killing us on purpose?? But we are 15 minutes into the movie!......YOU'RE RIGHT! How DOES he do it folks???"

But more importantly is the twist that everyone in the film can make brilliant assumptions. As the gang of unlikeable and flat kids hang out in a basement for four days (ASSUMING they won't be found), the population of Russia is nearly wiped out, Santa Claus builds a microwave gun and another gang learns how to destroy the aliens. IN FOUR DAYS.

But we'll get there.

The movie continues to drag you through a survival story that feels sadly reminiscent of "Red Dawn" except Patrick Swayze sold you on the Reds invading. The dialogue of "The Darkest Hour" is as follows:

Sean: I'm going to make this general assumption about these aliens. Now we should go over here.

One of his friends: But, Sean... You don't know that. I'm scared and would prefer to not be stupid.

Sean: SHUT UP ASSHOLE, THIS IS MY MOVIE.

(They do said act with greatest of ease.)

Repeat AD NAUSEUM.

That is, until the gang meets a group of Russians hiding in a building. This is where Santa Claus comes into play. Apparently he has found a way to keep them safe. He has built an elaborate gun that shoots microwaves. IN FOUR DAYS. And he must have tested it if he's so damn proud. IN THOSE SAME FOUR DAYS.

But this miracle gun only stuns the invaders. They don't want to make t too easy, plus we haven't had our heartstrings pulled yet by a semi-main character dying. We also haven't been blessed with seeing how little attachment these people have to each other.

Imagine you are in this movie and it's real for a moment. You see a loved one of any kind disintegrated in front of you. Human emotion dictates you would scream, cry, go into shock, even possibly "see red" and attack the alien with a slice pf bacon, if it was readily available. But you certainly wouldn't leave the area, mope around a bit until you receive a half hearted apology from Hirsch.

Alas, that's what we get when Anne (Rachel Taylor), the pretty blonde that just wants an English bartender, gets poofed out of our story. The gang runs, Hirsch gives her surviving friend the equivalent of a "SORRY, BRO" and we move on.

Then we get to see a gang of badasses KILLING an alien! Yay! Apparently if you keep shooting like a pissed of teen in "Modern Warfare," they will eventually blow up. While this just rips off EVERY VIDEO GAME EVER and makes the micro-gun seem useless, it at least tells us an end is in sight.

So the two groups get together and head for a submarine that will take them... well, who knows. Like a discontent teenage girl in Wisconsin, it doesn't seem to matter as long as there is some other place to go. But not before the group encounters more aliens.

But wait!! It looks as if... YES! "The Darkest Hour" is going for the Triple Crown of Bad Cinema!! They stuck the landing with unlikable characters... They wowed the judges with crazy assumptions... But now they will give you a NEW ELEMENT THAT WAS NEVER MENTIONED UNTIL IT BECAME CONVENIENT!

So, as the group makes their way for the sub, one of our alien friends wraps up Ben's leg with a tentacle-esque... tentacle! OH REALLY, says I. SUDDENLY, these aliens that are purely electrical in nature can manifest enough matter to capture a human, AND enough strength to overpower him?

Triple Crown won. Congrats.

Alright, this has gone on long enough. They reach the sub, the girl Sean likes gets lost so he throws a fit until they go get her, he takes down an alien (like all the other guys have already done; maybe now they won't make fun of him) and they get on the boat and leave. Our story ends with us thinking this group will now travel the world killing the aliens.

Which I doubt, seeing as how it lost money in theaters. Maybe sometimes Hollywood's ridiculous capitalism rules can save lives.

Maybe.

Kevin Smith burns down house with 'Tough Sh*t'

You either know Kevin Smith, love Kevin Smith or both. But no one truly hates Kevin Smith.

Critics hate his honesty. Some movie-goers hate his films. Some people in Hollywood hate the way he goes against the grain.

But you can't hate the man. Why? It's all mapped out in "Tough Sh*t," the brutally open, honest and entertaining pseudo-autobiography of Smith's rise to cult movie fame.

In a creepy way, reading this book is almost something you'd expect from a dying Hollywood god, spewing the shrouded truths of the mountain before he breathes his final breath. But the color and entertainment value of the book comes from the fact the Smith is very healthy. Very healthy and very stoned.

The book may begin with a simple premise: Smith's childhood, rise to fame, and how it all happened. Standard fare for anyone who has read a book penned by a writer/director/actor.

But Smith is a self-proclaimed sexual degenerate. Bruce Willis is lazy and insufferable. The movie industry is collapsing on itself like a dying star. These are intimate truths Smith lays out for us without any fear; it's things he has seen and horrors he has lived.

Through a rather poignant meta-arc, Smith documents his career from making Clerks to Red State, from his days as a New Jersey hood to the present founder and mogul of SmodCo, Smith details the intricacies and coincidentals of making it in Hollywood as an outcast, chasing the approval of a corrupted honcho (the infamous Harvey Weinstein) and eventually learning that you aren't a cog in the machine if you decide to run the damn thing.

Smith, being the exceptional writer and conversationalist he is, makes the book easy to delve into and relate to: it's a series of life lessons of a normal kid who decides to not share the same fate as his father, and bets everything on the movies.

One of the best highlights comes from one of Smith's many doses of harsh reality. Smith documents dealing with an intensely lackluster Willis in "Cop Out" and losing all respect for an actor he once loved through a series of increasingly uncomfortable days on set.

The book continually gets in depth into the process of not only filmmaking, but sex, the politics of business, religious extremists, and dealing with failure. While it's truly just a gathering of stories told by a relatable guy who has lived his dreams for better or worse, when you finish reading you feel inspired to fulfill your own dreams, obstacles be damned.

Sure, it means that it will come with a heaping helping of bullshit, but that's why Smith is here, to teach you to want the bullshit, too!

"Tough Sh*t" isn't a book just for film buffs or Smith fans. It's for anyone who has a dream that they have been putting off. Smith finds a fun way to tell us all that your failures lead somewhere, and sometimes they lead to your own personal Red State.

The good, bad and BLEGH of upcoming films!

Quick note: as a rule, I avoided any blockbusters already swimming the internet at full force. ("MIB 3," "Avengers", etc.) Except "Twilight," since it doesn't get enough hate from people.

So I climbed out of my hole this morning and I winced at what I saw.

As usual with me, let's start with the bad:

"TWILIGHT: BREAKING DAWN PART 2"

I've seen three of these films, and I'm still not sure how these got made. As we mention on Great Ideas, I can make fun of Stephenie Meyer, but I can't make fun of "Twilight."

But I can try...

Check this out: Bella gets pink eye and has an intense sexual encounter with a deer:



"We're the same temperature??" I thought these kids would be less akward after a quick marriage and bed shattering PG-13 sex scene. But, alas...

Speaking of Stephenie "Kinda Literature" Meyer...

"THE HOST"

I guess Meyer doesn't have to try anymore, she can jump straight to making flat films. you know what I need? A body snatchers-esque film, but for the easily impressed.



MMMMMM, there it is. You know what I love about it? It tells you just enough for tweens to be excited without showing you enough footage to know it'll suck. Well played.

Let's try some possibly interesting films. See what we're doing? We're getting LESS cynical as we go. It's like Willy Wonka. Happy Saturday, children...

"SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED"

These films hit so hot and cold with me: the indie with a strong but not well known cast that touches on some big movie themes while remaining heartfelt? Oh, boy. Will I leave the theatre saying "Huh! Not bad!" or "SCREW YOU DIABLO CODY!" a la Juno?

Let's see....



I'm going to hope for the former.

"PARANORMAN"

(You'll have to click on the title to see this one)

Being the perpetual 11-year-old I am, I'm already excited for Paranorman. A stop-motion movie about a kid, zombies, ghosts and curses? Yes, please! Then you see a cast including Anna Kendrick, John Goodman, jeff Garlin and Christopher Mintz-Plasse (can we just call him McLovin?). It looks strong!

And finally, a film that actually ...

"SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMEN"!

This is a big 180 for me. At first, it was another Snow White movie released in a flurry of Snow White junk ("Mirror Mirror"? Blegh.) and to top it, Kristen Stewart, the one that had the pink eye from earlier, is Snow White.

But wait...



I think I'm okay with it. I can just root for Charlize Theron to brutally beat her to death and scream "Where's your vampire now?!"

So maybe this didn't get less cynical. I tried.

HAPPY WEEKEND!

Great Ideas episode 10!

The Great Ideas podcast, home to two cynical nerds who fight while making obscure points, has reached its tenth episode!

You can check it out HERE for free, and feel free to comment on the page with your love/hate/own great ideas.

Attack of The Rebox No. 2: '80s remake battle!

Editor's note: Heyo, this is a new feature where we kind of just pick something at random at our local Redbox. Could be good, probably bad.

Alright!

Ladies and Gentlemen, today we have a battle to the death between two welterweight champions of '80s lore!

In this corner... Straight from 1982, directed by John Carpenter... shot grimly with Wilford Brimley... Remade quite aloof with the girl from "Death Proof"...

"THE THING!"

So THAT'S what happens when a mind is blown...



And in THIS corner... the 1984 version of Glee... the stinger with Lori Singer... pulled out of the sewer by director Craig Brewer...

"FOOTLOOSE!"

I think the tagline on the poster is a Churchill quote...


Going into the battle, my handicap is in favor of "The Thing." History may have more memories of "Footloose," but "The Thing" holds a kind place in the hearts of those who remember it.

ROUND 1: THE PLOTS!

"THE THING:" A group of scientists in the arctic locate an alien spacecraft, along with it's pilot. Once the alien breaks free of it's icy fate, it begins killing off the scientists by shapeshifting into them.

"FOOTLOOSE:" A young city boy moves to a small country town after his mother's death. When confronted with the culture change, including a ban on public dancing and music, he instigaes the town's youth into fighting back through dance.

ROUND 2: EXECUTION!

"THE THING:" The original film relied heavily on psychological terror; what do you do when the monster could be the person right next to you? The remake, however, heavily relies on CGI and jump scares, opting to give you shot after shot of a monster that's psychological bark far outweighs it's flashy bite.

"FOOTLOOSE:" The memory of 1984's "Footloose" left me expecting a heaping pile of cheesy, over-glamorized dance routines a la Step Up and a looser plot than "Star Wars Episode 1." I WAS DEAD WRONG. The director (previously from "Black Snake Moan" and "Hustle and Flow") keeps a basic structure but enlists some charismatic young talent and some real intelligence into what could have been just another teen dance off.

ROUND 3: RATINGS!

"THE THING:" Due to it's cheapening of a classic horror flick and all around "same old same old" feel, "The Thing" is, at best, a C for cheesy.

"FOOTLOOSE:" Maybe it's just low expectations, but between subplots and supporting acting that raises the bar, a successful rookie leading male (Kenny Wormald) and writing that only sometimes plays down to it's audience, "Footloose" gets a B+ for beating my cynicism into submission.

THE WINNER: "Footloose." Even if you cringe at the mention of the title, at least see it to know what a "dance flick" can be. The supporting cast (namely Ray McKinnon as the guiding uncle and Miles Teller as a respectfully done hick of a best friend) adds some unforeseen self respect to the show, and if you can forgive some cheesy moments and Dennis Quaid, you may end up being satisfied.

Attack Of the Redbox No. 1: 'Melancholia'

Editor's note: Heyo, this is a new feature where we kind of just pick something at random at our local Redbox. Could be good, probably bad.

Remember those kids in school who were always too smart for everything by their own standards? The ones who would make snide comments and shit on anything anyone liked? The ones who smoked clove cigarettes, listened to The Smiths and couldn't wait for the world to end?

Well, those kids grew up. And one of them made a movie. And it's about as good as you would expect it to be. By which I mean that it grossed about half of it's budget and leaves you happy you grew up and learned to function like an adult.

Fishing: You're doing it wrong.

"Melancholia" is a film about a young woman named Justine. Justine has crippling depression that goes untreated just enough for her to be completely (and I mean COMPLETELY) useless. She is aided by her sister, Claire, who is basically a walking panic attack herself. So right there you have yourself an upper of a movie, right?

After a wedding (which we will get to, BELIEVE YOU ME) that ends in some awkward departures, Justine and Claire and the cast of supporting normal people discover that a planet is on a crash course with Earth. BUM BUM BUM.

The rest of the film revolves around the core characters wringing their hands and looking pretty until the giant ball drops on humanity. But, much like every New Year's, you'll either be bored and drunk or asleep by the time it hits.

The movie is also divided into two segments, one following Justine and one following Claire. Part 1 revolves around the wedding, where everyone is rich, miserable and melodramatic. Cue Kirsten Dunst, fresh off "Spider-man 3." Yowza. She effectively plays a character you know nothing about in a way that makes you wonder if she was aware what her character's motivations even were. Or if she really had any.

And since no one (I'm looking at YOU, Von Trier...) takes the time to explain or build characters, we're left wondering what the hell is going on and why the hell we should care. It's simply a sad story about rich people not having things go their way. Nothing more. No mention of the plot or really anything that will pertain to the second part.

In that second and more movie-like part, you will quickly shed a tear for Kiefer Sutherland. He performs a well-rounded if one dimensional role as Claire's logical and scientific husband. He carries the plot of the movie in on his shoulders and, noticing no one willing to help move it to the other end of the movie, carries it nearly all the way home.

Let's get back to my previous swing at the people involved in this frowny face of a film. Director Lars Von Trier is the posterboy of pretentious film school kids. His previous work with "Antichrist" left me with two reactions. Firstly, Von Trier can pawn his need to shock audiences off as entertainment, but I know a self-obsessed punk when I see his "art." Secondly... gross, Lars. Just... gross.

Melancholia only fortified my opinion of the director. But some other amazingly egotistical things were learned. Von Trier directs and writes all of his movies, most likely because no one with talent will return his phone calls. I also discovered via IMDB that his motto is "Everything's going to hell, but we should smile all the way." Although he may have stolen that from a 14-year-old boy at Warped Tour. Who knows.

The extra content on "Melancholia" makes Von Trier ego issues even more obvious. What little interview material I could stand had the director boasting that he made sure that the science behind the movie was correct. Congrats, Lars. You did two days of work toward an associates degree in physics.

Overall, Lars Von Trier is and will always be an obnoxious pseudo-artist and his films, including "Melancholia," will go down as million dollar cries for help.

'The Descendants': A solid but underwhelming buffet

I put off this film for maybe too long.

Before the Oscars, the buzz and the word of mouth, "The Descendants" may have been a bittersweet and rich story of Matt King (Clooney), a wealthy husband with a wife slipping toward the grave and two daughters; one estranged and one just strange. King has to deal with possible infidelity, his wife's mortality, his eldest daughter's daft boyfriend (nicknamed by a friend of mine as "Lil Kelso") and a surprisingly personal business deal.

Objectively, the film is nearly the definition of hit and miss. While each subplot is interesting, there seems to be so much involved that you don't get enough of anything. The business deal subplot seems a great personal story of heritage; the wife and infidelity seems like a perfect setup for a dark comedy; the story of a man learning to handle his daughters alone plays out like a great road trip movie.

But much like a buffet, nothing is specialized. Everything is available, but nothing is served to the viewer in a special manner.

As stated,however, since the movie received such high praise, I went in expecting a bit more from a film which gathered such high acclaim. Yes, Clooney's performance was good.

But otherwise, nothing crept out as an award-worthy element. Sadly, one of the most surprising and praise-worthy roles is by Matthew Lillard (yes, Matthew Lillard!) who plays a rather critical role and handles it in a cringing and engaging maturity.

"The Descendants" is definitely a movie worth seeing. Just do your best not to expect a monumental film.

'Silent House' Is A Little Too Silent

I don't know where to start...

"Silent House" is... well, was marketed as... a real-time chunk of horror involving ayoung woman, violent inturders, and what seemed to be someimpressively fast-paced, one-take moves by the director.

What the film boils down to is a dark house full of cliched horror actress and derivative, cheap jump scares.

The majority of the film turns out to be Elizabeth Olson (also a product of overhype) either running like she just downed her eighth Heineken or quiletly crying. The latter of these at least got amusing when it seemed like her only way to survive this ordeal was to make rat faces.

Let's start the breakdown with the gimmick that got everyone in a tizzy: the promise of carefully orchestrated horror stunts, all done in one take and in real-time. This may be true, but is far from impressive in the film itself.

Yes, it is one take, but when you factor in the IMMENSE amount of time spent sitting, creeping or just killing time in a room, it's pretty noticable how they pull it all off. It would be more entertainging for Olsen to make a rat face and hold up a "buffering" sign.

(Possible Spoilers! But you shouldn't see this film, so....)

The storyline itself is just fragments of other bad movies. Olsen plays a young woman who goes to a family home with her father and uncle to rennovate and hopefully sell. Once things turn sour, the audience becomes aware to soon just how cheap the film will get.

It starts with Olsen's father and uncle suspiciously finding and hiding photos without showing them to her. Which starts the insanity; if your family kept hiding pictures that are strewn about the house, wouldn't you have a WTF moment?

Of course, a faceless person starts terrorizing Olsen, which leads her on a slow, dull ascent to the top floor of the house where she has a cathartic experience, part of which is her using a polaroid camera in the dark.

NOTE TO FUTURE DAMSELS IN DISTRESS: A Polaroid camera is incredibly loud, and the flash is all but useless for more than two seconds. When hiding from a possible killer, try not to give away your position but using a fashing noisemaker.

Now, a quick disclaimer: I'm very passionate about movies, their message, and underlying meaning. It gets me into troble with people who don't take them as seriously, but I'm the one writing here, so deal with it...

The ending turns into a "Fight Club" scenario, where apparently an Olsen is able to brutally attack grown men and drag them all over a house in less than an hour. Cute. An maybe plausible. But my problem came from the deeper motivation: Olsen attackeed her father and uncle due to her father raping her as a child.

I am able to stomach a large amount of things, being a horror fan. But what I don't stomach is how condescending this motivation is towards women (see my "Sucker Punch" review).

Rape of any kind is a traumatic experience and should be handled in a delicate manner, but saying that being raped turns you into a super human psycho is not only illogical, it's insulting. I'd assume that if a young girl was treated in such a way, she wouldn't forget and certainly wouldn't be ok with going to a house alone with the culprit.

Overall, Silent House is slow, dull and accidentally entertaining before turning confusing, illogical and insulting rregarding a serious issue.

The price of entertainment: NFL vs. The Saints

The New Orleans Saints, the darlings of the football world when they won Super Bowl XLIV (the one in 2009, for those who aren't Roman) for the hurricane-ravaged city.

This weekend, however, information started coming out that would taint that feel-good story and further blur the line as far as what is justified in sports entertainment.

Sports Illustrated reported a "pay-for-performance," or bounty system, that the Saints had in place for the last few seasons. The Defensive Coordinator at the time, Greg Williams, ran the player funded bounty pool that offered monetary payouts of at least $1,000 to any player who would knock a player out of the game temporarily. They would receive larger awards for more extensive injuries to opponents.

The largest reported was a possible $10,000 offered by linebacker John Vilma to any player that took Brett Favre out of a playoff game the Saints played them in.

All of this is, of course, illegal under NFL rules. It also is coming to light at a very decisive time in NFL history: over the course of the past two seasons, regulations have been put in place and decisions made to make the game safer. "Player safety" has been the mantra of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell since player concussions have been a large issue lately.

James Harrison is a linebacker for the historic Pittsburgh Steelers and has been a lightning rod for the safety debate. Harrison has a history of heavy (or "dirty") hits, and made his thoughts clear in an article in Men's Journal. In the article published in 2011, Harrison referred to Goodell as a "crook and a puppet" amongst other things, and said he hated him and would never respect him.

But for all his tough talk and hateful comments, is Harrison actually the protagonist in the story of player safety? And are the New Orleans Saints only doing what it takes to motivate their teammates?

It's a double edged sword for the NFL: either be the driving force to promote safety,or keep your sport the institution of tradition that it is.

On one hand, fans don't enjoy the game when you restrict how and when a player can be tackled.

As it stands now, a defender can only hit a player if the player can protect himself (knows the player is there, which dramatically lowers the chance of knocking the ball loose) and can still only hit the player if he leads with his shoulder, which makes it much easier to slip free of such a hit. A player like Harrison is known to hit the ball carrier without his knowledge, causing game-changing fumbles. He also hits with his helmet, causing enough force to knock the carrier off balance.

Being a fan myself, I'd prefer to see the hardest fight I can see in a football game. Seeing players draw fouls like an NBA player is not what I watch the game for.



The other side of this issue is on the side of former players, most notably the recently deceased Dave Duerson, former player for my team, the Chicago Bears.

Duerson played in the NFL for ten years, retiring in 1994. After a decade, when player concussions were realized to be a large issue, several former players were diagnosed with chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a degenerative brain disorder that caused several issues including aggression, confusion and depression.

CTE is currently being researched by the Boston University School of Medicine. Duerson had sent a text to his family asking that his family donate his brain to the program. Shortly after this message, Duerson ended his life with "self-inflicted gun wounds."

So which side takes higher precedence? The players and fans who want to keep the game pure and physically exerting? Or the former players who accepted the risk and now have their lives on the line?

The first step in that decision begins with the penalty awaiting the New Orleans Saints. Whether it's a slap on the wrist or a message-sending fine, the following week will dictate where professional football is heading.

Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill show the Academy how it's done

Every year that I morbidly watch the Oscars, I always wish someone would call out the things we're all thinking at home. It never happens, of course. The bland host makes a few "risque" shots at the other rich people in the room, much gafaw-ing, and more teleprompter reading.

..........

Sorry, I nodded off.

To my amusement, I ended up watching the Independent Spirit Awards Feb. 25, hosted by Seth Rogen. And if the goal of the rich old white men running the Academy is to bring in young people, the Spirit Awards are a lesson in candid humor.

The high-quality laughs and shots at award season started with Rogen's relentless monologue, making Ricky Gervais look like Bob Hope. Rogen threw hard punches at most of Hollywood, landing almost all of them. Some of the best landed on Mel Gibson, Bret Ratner and Chris Brown who received the best punchline.

"At the Grammys," Rogen observed, "you can literally beat the shit out of a nominee and be asked to perform twice!"

Like it or not, that's good comedy. Good luck, Billy Crystal. Make sure your hearing aid and Depends are a go.

Even the banter of some of the presenters was more entertaining than recent Oscar hosts. Jonah Hill and Kirsten Dunst got great laughs when Jonah Hill nearly took out the microphone with the wave of a hand.

Also at the Spirit awards, you'll see some kudos to films whose titles haven't been heard 40,000 times in the last month. While "The Artist" did clean up Best Film, Best Male Lead, Best Director and Best Cinematography, other notables included Michelle Williams (Best Female Lead, "My Week With Marilyn"), Will Reiser (Best First Screenplay, "50/50") and Shailene Woodley (Best Supporting Female, "The Descendants").

So, Oscar producers? Looking for a way to pump some youth, humor and ratings into your show without watching James Franco and Anne Hathaway freeze the room? Class is in session.

'Walking Dead' news! The Governor's coming to town!

"The Walking Dead" has been one of the most compelling shows on television over the last two years. And how could it not be? Character-heavy, post-apocolyptic zombie-war on the same network as "Mad Men" and "Breaking Bad." It's tailor-made for comic book nerds and horror fans to swoon over.

"But," says Me Of Two Years Ago, "how far can they take this? How much of a story is there really too be had without treading the same waters that have been treaded for 60 years?"

"You sad fool," says Me Of Today, "You have no idea the hell that's coming."

POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW

All fans of the "Walking Dead" comic series knows that the TV show is setting up for the brutalist of storylines: THE GOVERNOR.

Here's a mix of what is known from the comics and how I see it going down:

So Randall is the timebomb for the whole setup: Rick saves him from the Walkers and, not knowing who he is or where he comes from, takes him to the farm for medical attention.

Turns out Randall is from WOODBURY, the brutal, gladiator-esque home for humans. Woodbury is ruled by The Governor, a man whose charm is only matched by his soul-less acts of torture.

Of course, The Governor is going to want to see this farm when Randall gets free and alerts them, which will lead to the Rick that comes along in the comics: the shaken, desperate and animalistic survivor.

It's been announced that David Morrisey of British fame will play the ruler of Woodbury, but the question of what kind of Governor he will be is up in the air.

If the show stays true to the comic, we could see some gut-wrenching scenes of torture, decapitation and truly weird zombie-love.

Knowing how the television world works, there may be some clever and tasteful omissions on the part pf the show runners.

Let's say for now that the truth of the show's third season will rest on the addition of Michonne, the mysterious, sword-weilding queen of badassery who takes on The Governor like a sushi chef a couple times. (Notice that eye-patch above? That's a preview.)

If she is not added in, we'll know the show will try to ease through the story arc without getting cancelled. On the other hand, if Michonne comes out of the forest swinging near the end of this season, hang on to your sheriff's hats; it's gonna be a wild ride.

Best of 2011: Nos. 2 & 1 (Dan)

My countdown of the best movies of 2011 continues with Nos. 2 and 1.

First let's recap the list:

10. "Horrible Bosses"
9. "Rango"
8. "Super 8"
7. "Incidious"
6. "Attack the Block"
5. "Moneyball"
4. "50/50"
3. "Ides of March"

2. "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo"

If not for the out-of-left-field dark horse "Red State," "Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" is the best and most Oscar-worthy film of 2011.

Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) is an aggressively introverted computer genius who joins journalist Mikail Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) on a mysterious adventure into a rich families nightmarish past in order to solve a case of a missing girl. In the process, you get the kind of visuals and slow but satisfying pacing that only director David Fincher could deliver.

Imagine this is the next Bond movie, but instead of half-baked villains and muddling around for some action sequences, the writer pours their heart into their work, filling it with detail (for better or worse) and horror at times.

(By the way, make sure you know the lyrics to Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song" before you see this. You'll want to see the opening sequence a dozen times.)

1. "Red State"

When Kevin Smith announced he was pretty much done with the film scene and was going to take a shot at a horror flick, my ears perked up. As a horror savant, the idea of Smith's attitude brought to a thriller was intriguing. Over the months, as everything he did regarding the film was documented, reviewed and passed around via word of mouth, the initial novelty wore off.

By October, when the film finally made it to a semi-wide release, I went into the film expecting just another film.

Then my mind was melted by unrelenting terror, uncomfortable characters, and a tour de force by Smith that is my No. 1 of the year with a bullet.

Three high school students (a centerpiece for Smith's comedies) go out to the country for a hook-up with a mysterious woman. In a twenty-four hour period, hell breaks loose for not only the teens, but for terrorists and the lawmen who fight them. And on a meta level, God vs. Logic is the core of the film. The movie is glossed with slick storytelling and two Oscar-level monologues delivered by Michael Parks (the morose bigot Abin Cooper) and John Goodman (FBI lead and only man with a conscience Joseph Keenan.)

If you're a fan of action movies, horror movies or just solidly written films, "Red State" is a must see.

(AFTER-THE-FACT NOTE: I just saw "Red State" is bolstering a 48 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. I was honestly shocked. Then I realized it was due to critics expecting Smith to just try to push buttons. Of course they left underwhelmed; they wanted a controversy and got a smart film!)

Best of 2011: Nos. 4 & 3 (Dan)

My countdown of the best movies of 2011 continues with Nos. 4 and 3.

4. "50/50"

Another gut-wrechingly ignored film in Oscar season this year is "50/50," a beautiful and hilarious story of a young man who is diagnosed with cancer and struggles to deal with life when things start unraveling. Joseph Gordon Levitt (who has never been a part of a bad film, to the best of my knowledge) plays the lead character and the perfect straight man to Seth Rogen's bumbling, borderline man child Kyle.

Based on the true story of screenwriter Will Reiser's struggle in his 20s, "50/50" is a dry walk through coming to terms with death, and prioritizing along the way.

Not only will this movie make you laugh about cancer, the last 15 minutes will make you cry like you're watching "Field of Dreams." (It's a part of man-law: you can always tear up at "Field of Dreams," and now this movie is on that list.)

3. "Ides Of March"

What seemed at first as a desperate attempt to get some fanfare (the list of stars in this movie is longer than this blog post. Maybe.), "The Ides Of March" was actually on par with what expectations were raised to.

Ryan Gosling, who is slowly making a name for himself as a legitimate actor in this post-"Notebook" world, plays a budding political campaign manager. He's full of ideals, believes that good can be done in politics andd is willing to put his back into making it happen.

Sounds pretty naiive, right polito-cynics? Well, right you are. Slowly, things begin to unravel  in a seemingly simple primary race, and Stephen (Gosling) is slowly sunk into a game of lies, deception and immorality that will either break him or make him one of the monsters he hopes to defeat.

The films name is extremely apt in that the story plays out on a nearly Shakespearean level. Powerful characters are crafted with ease and made to fall. Also Shakespearean is the full weight of acting greats that play in the film. Of course there's Gosling, George Clooney and Phillip Seymour Hoffman, but there's also Marisa Tomei and the criminally underestimated Paul Giamatti and Jeffrey Wright.

The film plays out as a political nightmare for our hero, leading to a series of  well done twists and turns that leave you feeling like you are flying through the rings of political hell.

Best of 2011: Nos. 6 & 5 (Dan)

My countdown of the best movies of 2011 continues with Nos. 6 and 5.

6. "Attack The Block"

We live in an age where once something fresh is done, it's over, films like "Attack The Block" remind us that a developed style has more depth than we realize.

"Attack The Block" follows South London punks from a mugging to an action-packed fight against some straight up cool looking aliens.

The film is in the vein of "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World" in it's visceral nature and a bit like "Shaun Of The Dead" in it's cheeky British demeanor, but "Attack the Block" is it's own animal. It's young, it's dark, it's beautifully gritty and amazingly unapologetic.

Don't expect a lot of redemption value from your heroes, but expect them to fight for their block.

5. "Moneyball"

The only film on my list to receive critical acclaim (deservedly so) is "Moneyball." Another true story about Oakland A's General Manager Billy Beane and his attempt to discover a way to keep up with richer teams in Major League Baseball.

His big chance comes when he meets Peter Brand and develops a system to find players who may not be stars, but have the mathematical numbers to piece together wins.

The biggest negative comments I've heard about this movie are that people aren't into baseball.

Well, good news! This movie is not about baseball. Yes, one of the main elements in the movie revolves around a baseball team. But it's not so much about the players as it is the men who are the players. It's a story of people who are devalued and have accepted their fate to being small time players. More importantly, it's a movie about faith in your fellow man and that everyone has the potential to be something amazing.

In a time when a lot of people are disenfranchised, what could be better than a film about second chances, centering around the game America created? "Moneyball" is a fun, interesting and sentimental ride that you'd have to be heartless not to enjoy.

Best of 2011: Nos. 8 & 7 (Dan)

My countdown of the best movies of 2011 continues with Nos. 8 and 7.

8. "Super 8"

No, it was just coincidence.

"E.T." and "Goonies." If you're an American between 15 and 30, you've seen these movies and they are a part of your upbringing. These movies taught you that you and your friends can be bold. you can adventure, you can hunt treasure or just ride your bikes around town like bad asses.

Where did those movies go?

Well, "Super 8" is a solid throwback to those films. A group of kids work on a home movie (shot on a SUPER 8 camcorder)and stumble onto an alien conspiracy that leads to some great (I just refer to it as JJ Abrams level these days) storytelling.

It should be a crime that the weekend this came out we didn't see preteens put down their Justin Bieber (Bieber? Beeber? I don't care...) to go rock some movie making.

7. "Insidious"

Much like "Red State," "Insidious" gets big points for classy shock value. The opening scene of the film alone says "Hello, I look like some things you've seen. But I hope you're prepared for a ride!"

The Lambert family just moved into a new house expecting the perfect family life. Not so much.

The film will take you through some of the horror punches and rolls, but they will not just feed you the scares and send you packing. You're getting ghosts, demons, dreams, spooky pictures, opening doors, whispering voices, and one of the creepiest (or funniest) songs you'll ever hear.

Don't have the time to go to a theme park for a little fun? Take a ride through this ghost house flick instead and you'll get more bang for your buck.

Best movies of 2011: Nos. 10 & 9 (Dan)

Editor's note: To coincide with the Oscars on Sunday the Inscaped staff are posting their lists of the best movies of 2011.

Unlike other best of lists you won't see a bunch of pretentious movies you've never heard of. We like to focus on films that the general public actually sees. With that in mind get ready for some unconventional surprises.

10. "Horrible Bosses"

This will be debated. More than any other movie on this list, this is a pick that is purely out of my own personal taste. Which really just means that Tim may call me insane. But hear me out!

"Horrible Bosses" starts off as a loosely-fitted film that takes three ordinary Joes with... HORRIBLE BOSSES. Get it? That's the movie name.

But like an amateur pilot taking to the cockpit of a passenger plane and landing it safely, the three leads make this movie something more than just another casual brofilm. It's actually an enduring tale of losers finally taking control. Whether or not that is a good thing is decided in the plot.

Now here's my chance to rave about Charlie Day. If you don't know him, it's not a surprise. He mostly does his work on "It's Always Sunny In Philidelphia" on FX. But Day may be one of the best underrated actors of our generation. He has the voice of a perpetual clown. He can read you the morning news and you'd be chuckling. As a physical comedian, all it takes is him kicking open a door and yelling "WILDCARD, BITCHES!" to make you double over.

So when Day treads known ground of the dolt who accidentally snorts coke, you don't expect much. BUT... When you see him coked out, alone in a car in the middle of the night on a dark street, passionately singing The Ting Tings "That's Not My Name," how can you NOT enjoy yourself??

Maybe you won't like "Horrible Bosses." But if you can forgive a flimsy premise and enjoy comedians doing good work, you'll walk away with some great laughs.

9. "Rango"

Full disclosure: I love a good animated movie. And the last decade has been good eating for me! Animated features are maybe the most hit and miss medium in film imaginable. So when you see a cartoon where you forget it's a cartoon (a la "The Incredibles," "Up," "Tangled"), it means you're watching a great movie.

Rango is a big hit that way; halfway through the story of a chameleon who wants to strike it big and ends up in over his head when he stumbles into a high-tension Western, you forget that it's just a bunch of lines and colors. You want to see Rango be a hero as much as you feel a little terrified of Rattlesnake Jake (Bill Nighy).

If "Rango" was a live action western-comedy, it would have made a much bigger splash. But let your inner child out and go enjoy yourself a good ol' lizard shootout!

Great Ideas podcast No. 4!

Hello, friends!

"Great Ideas" is a (FREE) podcast run by myself (Hi, I'm Daniel. You may know me from some work I do around here including the infamous massive parenthetical.) and Sasha, my sidekick. (And Anthony our mild-mannered, eccentric producer.)

We discuss the issues of the day including: Death, the apocalypse, Madonna, aliens, movies... you know, stuff you find in your uncle's attic.

THIS WEEK: Sasha skips town, so Producer Anthony sits in to discuss drug use, the awkward discovery of "special" files on computers, iced cream and DEATH. Whatta downer, no?

Are you sitting in front of your computer right now saying "Hey, I'm digging what this socially maladjusted chatterbox is saying?"

Then you should do the following:

1. Visit the GREAT IDEAS website
2. Choose an episode. Don't worry. There's plenty to to be had.
3. In the blog post, click the orange link.
4. On the next page, hit the green download button.
5. PLEASE ENJOY!

OR

Use this link to go straight to step 4:

http://www.mediafire.com/?1p9tj1c3jnxtraj

We're growing in fanbase, quality and entertainment, so get in on the ground floor so when we're big news, you can be the snob that hates us for going mainstream!!!

(We also enjoy whale pictures.)

-Daniel

THE GREAT DEBATES: HOW TO FIGHT IN THE NEW 1800s

HATER

"A term used by others, usually being suburban "gangsters", whose lives are absolutely and undeniably defined by what others think. These people "rumble" often and think of themselves as original and/or indestructible. People that use the term "haters" are the lowest stage of the evolutionary scale. They bleed the fastest and have thought processes similar to that of a mentally underdeveloped cat." -Urban Dictionary

Good evening, class. The lesson today will consist of proper composure, maturity and eloquence when facing a debate.

Let me begin with a quick history, if you'll allow me.

In 1804, Vice President Andrew Burr shot and fatally wounded Alexander Hamilton, the first US Secretary of the Treasury. The duel that spurred legend was held in response to years of verbal public jabbing on both sides.

At that time, the Northern United States were outlawing such barbaric practices in hopes that all people could learn to use their words in such a way that they could not only express their feelings, but do so in a respectful way.

208 years later, in the age of the Internet and the Beiber (Beeber? Seeger?Beuber? I don't know...), the collective conversation of ideas can be paraphrased as this:



All of the passion of a political duel, but it lacks humanity, no?

Which brings us to this lesson. In this lesson, we will learn to accept dissent, analyze it, and respond in a way that would be more so what Mrs. Hamilton was probably hoping for.

Our subject this evening will be movies, prominently "Sucker-Punch," the all-sizzle, no-steak mindless film made for the adoration of incessant tweens.

Now I hear the rumblings in the back of the class. When people--in this case critics, which are sometimes barely human-- make statements like the one I just made, they are commonly answered in two ways. If the reply is in agreement, it's a simple matter of praise. However, if the reply is in dissent you will see all manner of juvenile retorts. Such as this:

CRITIC: "The movie spins out of control, until it collapses in a heap, senseless."

READER RESPONSE: "Well apparently you dont get the message of this movie its not just about fighting!!! Maybe somday sense will smack you in the face and you'll kno how much of a amazing movie this is!"

The replier made their point, but at the cost of any possible respect to be earned. If the movie is "not just about fighting," perhaps the reader should volunteer what other elements the critic had missed. Such an answer, if done properly would debase the critic's talent and earn the replier a valid point.

The other comment is rather hostile. To say the critic needs to be physically assaulted by sense itself is not only improbable; it's also being ranted in a statement riddled with misspellings and grammatical errors. Sense seems to have left the debate before it began!

Let's try another:

CRITIC: "I'm glad I saw Twilight for one reason: It made the phrase 'jump the shark' obsolete, to be potentially replaced with 'The vampires are playing baseball.'"

READER: "your an idiot. i can admit that it wasnt an unbelievable film but this film was made for fans of the books (mostly teenage girls) and not old, cranky, male critics! the cast and crew continuously said 'oh, well were doing this for you guys, the fans of the books.'"

A rather creative hit from the critic, leaving the response falling short. Rule of thumb, everyone: to make a valid argument, it's a battle of wits; if you don't stack up, shut up. Write that down, that's on the test.

Also, the reader made two major mistakes. First, they made an excluding statement. Saying things like "X is just not for you!" or "You just don't get Y!" than you are limiting the art in question. Major motion pictures, in this instance, are made for the general public. Corporate studios don't give millions of dollars to only entertain SOME people. So if someone "just doesn't get it," then in a certain way what you're defending has failed.

Second, the reader made it an issue of sex. Suddenly, the debate isn't about the merit of the work, it's a matter of only a certain sex or creed or mindset can enjoy it. Maybe that makes it special, but again, it leaves it open to more scrutiny. By saying something can only be enjoyed by a certain group, you're fortifying the fact that the person you arre debating is correct in not liking it. This is more of a retreating tactic. If you resort to either of these two arguments, you are waving a white flag.

The idea of debate is to respectfully state sides of an argument until you reach an understanding of each other, even if you don't agree. When someone says something that you don't agree with, learn to use the English language to your advantage. It's simple to make a blanket statement and then retreat from the discussion. It's common these days; the Internet is slowly breeding a generation of cowards and cynics who will not be able to argue about something without it leading to divorce, violence or murder.

It is impossible to distance yourself from the Internet, so the best thing you can do is take part in a discussion. If someone you know makes a statement you disagree with, start here: State your belief, state why you believe it, ask questions about their statement IN ORDER TO GAIN CLARITY. No need for barbed comments, insulting statements or name calling.

One of the greatest gifts is the gift of communication. It's right up there with Lemon Ginger tea and the wheel. And the last thing we need is a generation of people who can't debate things without throwing hot tea at each other and running our pets over.

Bon Iver's win is the Grammy's big loss

Justin Vernon, frontman for indie folk group "Bon Iver," accepted the Grammy for best new band tonight. Not only was it a big win for the band, it was a big loss for the Grammys themselves.

Bon Iver released their first album in 2007. In case you need a hand with this, the current year is 2012.

That's five years.

Maybe the people who make such decisions define "New Artist" as "the band you heard your grandson talking about." Or maybe you aren't considered new until you are a No. 2 Billboard success. Much like the Academy Awards, this is outing the Grammys as nothing more than a commercial reach-around for the people who keep them rich.

I want to make one thing clear: I enjoy Bon Iver. This isn't a matter of me hating on the band; it's simply an amazing showing of where modern entertainment stands: the best movies, music, etc. doesn't matter to the industry. It all boils down to who does the best job of keeping them in business.

While people are Occupying Wall Street, maybe we should have an Occupy Universal movement and try to give art back to the people who enjoy it more than money.

'Walking Dead' episode 2.8 'Nebraska' recap

What a great way to start the second half of Season 2! A pick axe to a zombie head that looks like it was made for 3-D.

"Nebraska" was a tense goodbye to the possibility of hope for the characters on the show. While the obvious metaphor for the pursuit of hope was the search for Sophia, there was a lot of deeper soul searching in this episode: Dale and Shane continued their moral standoff, Shane showed some guilt (or at least some compassion) to Carol and Rick begins to realize the person he must become in order to protect his family.

Speaking of the Grimes family, they've emerged as the First Family of the apocalypse. Which is amusingly accurate at times: Rick the President, trying to keep peace when war is on their porch; Lori the First Lady, doing everything she can to heal people after "Barnegeddon" and their son Carl, who has one of the most interesting developments in the show so far.

Carl has been through a lot. He accepted his father's death. He attached to Shane, who is slowly turning into the Mad Max of murder. Carl's father then miraculously reappeared. Then Carl was shot while enjoying a deer encounter. Then he had to see his father shoot his girlfriend (or friend that is a girl). Sounds like a pretty nasty coming-of-age, no?

But in this episode, it's more about the repercussions of taking actions to survive. Whether it's moral or not, everyone would have to side with Shane in his death romp, shooting a barn full of undead former family members. But it then becomes Rick's duty to clean up his mess, leading to the most intense Mexican standoff in TV history: The Rick/Hershel/Mystery Guest showdown.

It starts off as two fathers deciding which is more important: a harsh, desolate reality? Or suffering for their family? They overall consensus of the moment seems to be that they need to take charge to salvage what they can from two emotionally wrecked families.

But it's not "Walking Dead" without a heavy dose of "Oh S#*%!" and "Oh no!"

Before the group can get back to their farmhouse, two unfamiliar faces stumble into the bar. In the zombie apocalypse, this can only mean bad things. After a simple talk and a quick urination on the floor (Philly people! geez...), it becomes apparent things have gone from bad to worse when the new faces want in on the farmhouse. So Rick makes the decision that needs to be made: a headshot on the leader and a few well placed shots on the urinator.

This move was interesting simply because it takes away Shane's main bargaining piece. Since day one, Shane has been "The Man of Action," the one who will make hard decisions. But now Rick has put down a young girl who has turned and now he has killed two men who tried to push in on his land. Moving forward, it will be interesting to see what happens when Shane is no longer the only badass.

Now for comic book fans, we know what this could mean...

POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!




SERIOUSLY!!!!!



So this is eerily similar to the beginning of the Governor storyline. Which, if true, means there is some HEINOUS material on the way. So much so that all of us who read ahead into the darker parts of the story have to wonder: How the hell will they pull this off? 80% of the series coming up will be unairable! Will they stay remotely true and be the first show to have straight up torture on television? Will they ease the brakes on it and give us a watered down version? Or will they skip the storyline altogether?

Give me your thoughts below!!!

PS: Dave Navarro was on TheTalking Dead. Note to prospective stars: If you're into a show and get a chance to discuss it on TV with a producer from the show, try not to complain like a jerk the whole time.