36 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(06/18/10 6:57pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Before listening to Grace Potter & The Nocturnals’ latest self-titled album, the only introduction I had was a Facebook ad suggesting them because I like Duffy. I’m not sure about that comparison, but I’m glad it got me to listen to this album. Grace Potter’s voice, even in the album’s quieter moments, brims with power, and its slightly rough quality complements the sonic landscape created by her band. Combining classic rock guitars with touches of swinging 1960s soul and the occasional welcome dash of country introspection, the band effortlessly moves from the gritty opener “Paris (Ooh La La)” to the sad, quiet closing “Things I Never Needed” without taking a real misstep. While I occasionally wished some of the lyrics were a little less throwback, Grace Potter & The Nocturnals hooked me with its modern take on a retro sound.
(04/21/10 9:42pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>There’s a wonderful new show on Bravo called “9 by Design” that deserves mention for a number of reasons. It’s yet another example of the genius of Bravo’s casting and production development teams. Whether you like it or not, Bravo knows how to find compelling personalities who have extraordinary talents and build docu-reality series around them (a la Jeff Lewis, the brilliant and obsessive L.A. house-flipper and star of “Flipping Out”). The Novogratz family continues Bravo’s streak. Bob and Cortney own Sixx Design, a New York-based design firm that has completed some truly remarkable transformations of urban spaces from run-down grunginess to modern elegance with a beautiful mix of contemporary and vintage elements.Oh, and they also have six kids — including two sets of twins! — with the seventh arriving in the episode that aired this week.On the surface, this might seem like just another program leaping on the “people with a lot of kids” reality-show bandwagon that TLC started with “Jon & Kate Plus Eight” and continued seemingly ad nauseum with “19 Kids and Counting” and several other programs. To be fair, it does seem that Bravo would have been less likely to greenlight “9 by Design” if it weren’t for the shows that came before it. But to say that is to sell the Novogratz family short. Bob and Cortney buy properties and redesign them from the ground up. And they live in them for a time until they find a renter or buyer, at which point they move on to the next property. This means that they move often — 11 or so times since they’ve been married — and in the middle of their children’s young lives. Despite that, their kids seem remarkably well-adjusted. Wolfie, the oldest Novogratz child at 11, says at one point in the pilot that he’s moved eight times. You’d think that kind of instability would create psychological problems, but in fact, it seems the opposite is true. The kids are mature and down-to-earth, but not in the stereotypical too-mature-too-soon mold of the movies. I think it helps that Bob and Cortney involve their kids in their decisions. When the family discovers in the pilot that they have to move into a very small apartment while their next house is being built, they take the kids out to a flea market to buy a few key pieces with which to make the apartment more like home and let the kids help them pick out the pieces and place them in the apartment. Bob and Cortney are great parents, in my mind, because they’re integrating the lives of their kids, as best they can, with their business goals and interests.I hate to contrast this with the dilemma of Kate Gosselin, mostly because I’m loath to discuss her in general, but I think Cortney Novogratz leads by example in the working reality-show parent arena because she’s working and raising kids simultaneously, not working in order to raise her kids. I’m not suggesting Kate’s an absentee mom, after all, she turned her basement into a dance studio so she could rehearse for “Dancing with the Stars” and be near her kids. However, I think Kate needs a change of mentality. Reality shows should not be part-and-parcel of a career, especially if they aren’t integrated with her responsibilities as a parent. She would be better served by finding marketable skills (not including celebrity) and using those to support her family.
(04/14/10 7:51pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In interviews to promote this album, lead singer Matt MacDonald said he set out to write a set of songs that were simple but great.Well, he got the “simple” part right.“Vagabonds” has a lot of “whoa-oh” choruses and chord progressions that will be familiar to fans of modern rock music. As a result, the album is catchy at first, but fails to maintain the listener’s interest upon repeat.The exception is “Solar Powered Life,” a short, kicky rock shuffle made for arena sing-alongs.MacDonald’s voice retains the gritty passion that made the band’s last album, “The Silver Cord,” such a treat, but it’s a shame that he didn’t write songs that matched the aggression and power that his voice is capable of rendering.
(04/07/10 2:24pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>It’s no secret that viewership for the four major broadcast networks is disintegrating. When a show receives a historically low viewership percentage among 18- to 45-year-olds and still has a shot at being renewed — yes, I might have to rag on “Heroes” for another season before NBC cancels it — there’s something wrong with the system.The broadcast networks are well aware of this, and they’re constantly looking for that brilliant new show concept that will be the next buzzy hit, bring in record viewership and lead entertainment blogs and critics to believe the network’s problems are over. Their strategy? More of the same. According to the Hollywood Reporter, the major networks are collectively producing 28 police-drama or comic-drama pilots in preparation for the upcoming season. That’s 28 shows attempting to achieve the ratings staying power and syndicated dominance of “Law & Order,” a series that never fails to put me to sleep. Lest we forget, the networks are also putting countless pilots about doctors and lawyers, revivals of old shows (“Hawaii Five-O” on CBS) or sure-to-be-terrible-despite-great-casting remakes of foreign shows (NBC’s “Prime Suspect”) into production. Sigh.I’m not ragging on all television shows involving cops. Some of my favorite current series, like ABC’s “Castle,” are police dramedies with heavy procedural elements and small serial character arcs. But for every “Castle” there are three “CSI:” iterations, all of which seem content to tread water creatively and deliver episode after episode of consistent but mind-numbingly dull case solving. Each network has its troubles with getting these procedural shows off the ground. Recently CBS has done a great job attaching a compelling lead actor (like Simon Baker in “The Mentalist”), but that doesn’t mean I trust them to do it right again. I mean, they did put train-wreck medical drama “Miami Medical” on the air. ABC hasn’t had a great track record with these sorts of shows in the past few seasons, even though they’ve had success in other genres, like comedy. NBC has behaved as expected, canceling “Southland” — one of the most interesting cop dramas on the current TV landscape, in my opinion — in favor of “The Jay Leno Show,” and we all know how that turned out. FOX has done surprisingly well with procedurals like “Lie To Me,” although they usually prefer them with a twist of mythos a la “Fringe.”But my questions about the broadcast networks’ plans go beyond whether or not they can actually produce, nurture and promote a drama about a quirky cop/doctor/lawyer. I want to know why the networks think it’s a good idea to aim for the lowest common denominator and spend pilot season after pilot season reaching for the same type of show instead of branching out and looking for something more, dare I say, original?The broadcast system is basically dead. Cable sucker-punched it in the ’80s, and it hasn’t recovered since. I think it’s time for the big four to stop beating a dead horse and look to their cable competitors for inspiration. Creative, genre-bending show concepts are thriving critically and commercially on basic cable networks like AMC and especially on pay cable networks like Showtime and HBO. Even if ratings standards are different on cable than they are on network TV, I see no reason why ABC or NBC shouldn’t aspire to find the next “Breaking Bad.” FOX went way out of the box with “Glee” and found major success; why haven’t the other networks gotten the memo?
(03/24/10 9:09pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that Sandra Bullock and Jesse James are reportedly headed for Splitsville after five years of marriage. Or that Kate Winslet’s publicist recently confirmed the actress’ split from longtime partner and Oscar-winning director Sam Mendes. Both separations have been headline news in the tabloids, alongside coverage of the continuing saga of Tiger Woods and his harem of mistresses and the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter imbroglio (a story which might net The National Enquirer a Pulitzer Prize. The National-freaking-Enquirer!).Splits like these aren’t new. Just this summer, the nation was captivated by the nasty divorce of Jon and Kate Gosselin, stars of TLC’s “Jon & Kate Plus 8.” Then we just as quickly grew annoyed with Jon’s constant promotion of Ed Hardy, an already ubiquitous and — I’m calling it like I see it — ugly brand, as well as Kate’s incessant publicity-whoring. Obviously, infotainment media (the E! network, “Entertainment Tonight,” et al.) see it as big news, but that’s mostly because it’s big business. As long as they have “new” details to report, People and In Touch will slap the latest celebrity divorce, impending separation or alleged split on their covers for weeks on end. And readers gobble it up. My question is, can we chalk this media hysteria over celebrity splits up to the star factor alone? Or is there some other game afoot? Answering these questions entails an interrogation of the assumption that readers of People and viewers of “Entertainment Tonight” are actually interested in these stories of their own volition. I have a hard time believing that a nation with a divorce rate of fifty percent for first marriages (higher for second or third marriages) wants to know the gory details of the dissolution of celebrity marriages, especially because these stories might share sad similarities to the situation in which thousands of American couples find themselves. No, I think the real reason that these stories sell well is that they’re the stories the infotainment media tell us are the most important. Us Weekly wants me to take comfort in the fact that Mischa Barton goes grocery shopping in sweats and unwashed hair. That’s great, but I never walk out my front door without showering first, and I don’t own a pair of sweatpants. Frankly, I find the notion that I’m supposed to take comfort in the failed relationships of Sandra and Kate morbid and defeatist. Morbid because I don’t ever want to be comforted in the failures of others and defeatist because it seems to imply that all marriages, celebrity or otherwise, are bound to fail.Call me a hopeless romantic, or just someone who thinks marriage is — above all — a commitment, but I refuse to buy the story the infotainment media is selling. As for Sandra and Kate, both splits are sad news, and my sympathies are with both of them as they spend time with their families and deal with the emotional fallout of the end of their respective relationships. I would express my hope that the media would give them space and not report every single detail of the separation proceedings, but we all know it’s a little too late for that.
(03/10/10 8:33pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>There’s nothing wrong, exactly, with Jason Derulo’s new self-titled album. All nine songs on the album are catchy as hell in their own right, and Derulo’s Auto-Tune-aided falsetto has a pleasing, radio-ready sound. The problem is, not one track successfully differentiates him from other current radio-friendly peers, like Iyaz and Jay Sean, who are working with the same bag of tricks.Most of the songs sample other cuts. Leadoff single “Whatcha Say” steals the hook from Imogen Heap’s “Hide and Seek” and “Love Hangover” rides on the back of Men at Work’s “Who Can It Be Now?” This is a cool effect, but it’s not as cool or unexpected as the R&B-rock-electro fusion — and sample-free — sound of the second single, “In My Head.” Derulo’s debut effort is fun but ultimately too safe to be memorable.
(03/03/10 3:24pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Readers, can I get real with you for a second? I’m a huge fan of awards shows like the Golden Globes, Grammys and Oscars. But it’s not because of the (usually dull) acceptance speeches or a special guest appearance by the executives from Ernst & Young. Actually, my love of awards shows stems from my obsession with red-carpet coverage.Yeah, I said obsession. And I’m only slightly ashamed to say it.Anyone who knows me knows I am a sucker for both quality TV shows and trainwreck reality TV. Red carpet coverage gloriously offers the best of the both worlds. Like any TV show worth its salt (er, ratings), E!’s red carpet telecasts are all about high drama and comedy, usually of the unintentional or completely awkward varieties.Much of the drama comes from that first glimpse of celebrities getting out of their limousines, smoothing the wrinkles out of their dresses or suits and molding their faces into the perma-sultry-pout mode. This is one of my favorite parts of red carpet coverage, and I’m not afraid to say it. Listen, I dig fashion. I’ve seen both seasons of “The Rachel Zoe Project” and been a devoted viewer of “Project Runway” since its second season, which obviously qualifies me to critique celebrity dresses, hairstyles, jewelry and fake tans. To my delight, red carpets exponentially up the levels of craziness and/or glamour of celebrity fashion. Who could forget Bjork’s infamous swan dress, or Hilary Swank’s completely backless navy stunner of a gown? Moments like those only come around a few months out of the year.But dramatic fashion statements are far from the whole red carpet enchilada. To watch this stuff is to get very well acquainted with the various neuroses, faux-feuds and peculiar brands of awkward of hosts a la Giuliana Rancic, Ryan Seacrest and Mr. J of “America’s Next Top Model” infamy. Within the first few seconds of the Golden Globes telecast, it was clear that Seacrest and Rancic intended to transition between each other with zingers that hit uncomfortably close to the bone, including transparent digs at Seacrest’s masculinity. Mr. J — poor, platinum-coiffed soul — didn’t know what to say.Interviews are the bread and butter of red carpet coverage, and Seacrest and Rancic rarely disappoint in asking questions. That’s not to say they’re questions anyone necessarily wants answered; usually they’re either obligatory (“Who are you wearing?”), suspicious (“Talk to me about the film you’re in that’s coming out next week!”) or awkward (“What’s your diet secret?”). Why neither of them ask the really important questions, like “Wait, why are you famous, again?,” is beyond me.The homemade strawberry jam, if you will, on the bread and butter of red carpet interviews, is all the ridiculous stuff that happens without warning. Like when Gary Busey kissed a stunned, defenseless Jennifer Garner at last year’s Globes, or when Rancic got snubbed by George Clooney and his new Italian girlfriend and shouted at them in Italian to come back, or any time when celebrities were confronted with a cheesy “HoloGlam” ghost-of-red-carpets-past image. The look of sheer bewilderment on the face of Toni Collette at this year’s Globes said it all — WTF. (Why the face?)So, yeah, I’m a little ashamed to say that I will drop everything to watch two hours of utterly ridiculous celebrity hobnobbing. But only a little. This Sunday, grab a seat on your couch a little before the ceremony starts. You might just find yourself unable to look away from the crazy train heading straight for the Kodak Theater.
(02/17/10 10:59pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>It’s official: Hollywood is obsessed with 3-D. But you didn’t need me to tell you that. By now everyone (except me, apparently) has seen “Avatar” and beheld the wonders of James Cameron’s big blue vision. You also paid several dollars more for a 3-D ticket than you did a regular ticket, and the big studios aren’t going to take a chance on that sort of profit being available for every movie ever from here on out.It seems like new films are not being greenlit unless their directors are planning to shoot them in 3-D. The recently announced “Spider-Man” reboot wasn’t allowed to move to script stage until new director Marc Webb agreed to film it in three dimensions. Current speculation is that the fourth installment of money-hungry Summit Entertainment’s Twilight Saga, “Breaking Dawn,” will be split into two movies, both of which will be filmed in 3-D.Never mind that most commentators thought Stephenie Meyer’s fourth book — including implied rough sex, graphic violence and a preposterous ending — unfilmable. Now all those frightening, decidedly non-PG-13 images will likely be three-dimensional. Not only does it appear all major film projects for the next few years will be in 3-D, but opportunistic studio executives are capitalizing on the immediate success of “Avatar” by converting already-shot films to 3-D in the post-production stage. “Clash of the Titans” had an original release date of March 26 but was recently pushed to April 2 so Warner Bros. could convert it. “Iron Man 2” director Jon Favreau made no secret of wanting to shoot in digital 3-D, but his director of photography refused him. Now, however, it appears Marvel execs are talking about converting it, too, to 3-D. The problem with this post-production conversion process is that it does not produce the smoothly layered effect that James Cameron achieved. The 3-D process Cameron pioneered involved shooting with digital film, among myriad other processes, but most 2-D pictures currently produced still use industry-standard 35 mm celluloid. That image is converted into a digital image, which is then broken up into layers to achieve a heightened level of the 3-D illusion. That’s a gross simplification, but the problem I have with the process is fairly obvious — it’s not organic at all. If a film is shot in 2-D and then converted to 3-D, it’s not wholly in either dimension. It’s just sort of ... there, in inter-dimensional limbo. And I’m not the only one who thinks so. George Lucas and his producer Rick McCallum won’t budge on converting any of the six “Star Wars” movies to 3-D due to a lack of technology that meets Lucas’ notoriously finicky expectations. I already regret writing this, but if something isn’t good enough for George Lucas, it isn’t good enough for me. Look, I’m not saying that 3-D is a travesty. It can legitimately look amazing, and I have no doubt that once a director like George Lucas gets his hands on some fancy 3-D equipment, amazing things are going to happen.But don’t count me among the 3-D believers, either. I’m skeptical that all this 3-D is going to even approach the amazing effects showcased in “Avatar,” and if it doesn’t, I’m not sure I’m comfortable shelling out more money for tickets to see a film in 3-D, enabling Hollywood to justify its mania. For now, seeing a film in only two dimensions is just fine with me.
(02/12/10 4:57am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>After flashbacks, flashforwards and flash-time traveling, "Lost" has introduced a new storytelling device for its final season: the flash-sideways. Two of WEEKEND's biggest "Lost" geeks Austin Morris and Cory Barker discuss the implications of new kind of flashes in this week's e-mail debate.We now know that the storytelling device "Lost" is adopting for its final season has been dubbed "flash-sideways" by Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse, and these sideways-flashes are depicting either an alternate reality or a parallel reality, one in which Oceanic 815 lands safely in L.A. and the Island is deep under the Pacific Ocean. Complicating the situation even further, there are new passengers on the plane (hello, Desmond!), and our old friends may not be the same people we've grown to love (hi, nervous-to-fly Jack!)I think it's a little too early to speculate on exactly what is going on in this alternate reality, but I think we were offered some clues in "What Kate Does," the third episode of the season. Kate seemingly remembered a stuffed killer whale in Claire's baggage, which I believe was Aaron's in Season 4, and Claire's name for her unborn baby -- Aaron -- just comes to her.The lives we've already seen these characters live seem to be seeping into this alternate reality in ways that are certainly surprising the characters--they seem as yet unaware of what exactly they're experiencing, which I can only describe as intense deja-vu.But beyond what exactly is happening in the flash-sideways story are questions of whether it's a successful move, or even the right move for the show to take in its final season. If people are asking the latter question, I wonder if we've been watching the same show for the past five seasons. Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse are going to take Lost where they want it to go at this point, and we're just along for the ride. For my part, I'm happy to stay on the ride as long as it's done at least as well as it has been in these first three episodes. The flash-sideways portions of "LA X" were totally compelling even after viewing them again, with the element of surprise taken away. The idea that these characters would end up affecting each other's lives, regardless of the fate of Oceanic 815, is a marvelous conceit, and the focused flash-sideways in "What Kate Does" was a wonderful re-invention of Kate and Claire's relationship, which was such an integral part of prior seasons. If the "flash-sideways" stories continue to bring our favorite characters together and provide interesting callbacks to information we've learned from previous seasons, I think I'll continue to be hooked.--Austin MorrisMy primary concern with the flash-sideways lies in the fact that we don't have a lot of time. Now, I'm not one of those fans who expects every episode to be chock-full of ANSWERS!!!OMG -- case in point, I liked "What Kate Does" -- but I am still worried that it will take too long to get to the true point of these flash-sideways, and by that point, the audience will just be annoyed with them in general. I understand that the point of them is to show us that the 815'ers lives would cross no matter if they crashed on the island or not, but in a sense, that feels like a convenient way for Lindelof and Cuse to explain away another "cool" way the story. I don't want to throw out the "gimmick" word, especially because I do trust the two of them, but it does feel a bit that way -- at this point. It feels like that the characters are slowly going to remember their island journey, but is that really necessary? From everything that I have read, the flash-sidways are only going to last half of the season and then by ep 8/9, things are going to coalesce into one story -- obviously the island story -- and so I'm worried. I'm worried that we will have to see a number of contrivances that gets the now-remembering 815'ers together again so that they can go back to the island for whatever reason. Isn't that what we just did last season? As enjoyable as that all was, it was contrived enough, and there is no reason to do that again. --Cory BarkerI'm sort of with you on the conceit feeling a wee bit gimmicky right now. I'm not one of those people who wants the show to answer all my questions about it, either -- I'm willing to follow the show to whatever end it chooses, not necessarily the one I want -- but I do think that the oblique hints we've been given thus far that the characters lives are colliding with their lives in an alternate reality may not be enough to carry another episode."What Kate Does" was very self contained, and I liked that, but I still have nagging questions about the premiere, like what it means that New Otherton was built and the statue was still crumbled on the sunken island, and just why the hell Desmond was suddenly on the plane. In the case of the side-flashes, I feel like it's more imperative to get to the point than it is in the Island-story...and not just because this is the last season.As to your point about contrivance...well, isn't just about everything in fiction contrivance? The art is disguising contrivance with real meaning, and I feel like Lost does that extremely well. I mean, I even liked Jack in "What Kate Does," which is an achievement for the writers. --Austin MorrisYeah, I mean that's my major concern. I think that "What Kate Does" kept my interest enough and as long as future episodes use that same formula where we see past island-pairs [Jack-Locke, Ben-Sayid, Ben-Locke, etc.] in new situations it will definitely be cool. I think it will be good enough to just sit there with tension hoping that one person will suddenly remember something. But again, in season six, is that really worth it? Like you said, there are a slew of nagging questions just from the last few episodes alone, and again, don't want to be ANSWERSNOWMOREANSWERS type of fan, but something has to give in a sense. The clear best parts of the first three episodes have been the moments on the island, with the flashes feeling like quick little moments that give us an idea of a person's psyche, much like flashbacks, even if the two versions of the character are not yet connected, but so far there is nothing THAT substantial. Obviously with Kate at the forefront, that is usually the case, and maybe we'll see how things go next week when we dip into the flash-sideways life of one John Locke. For now, it's apparent we are both willing to trust the writers completely and have great hopes for the flash-sideways. And let's just hope we're right.And oh yeah, Jack was THE MAN in "What Kate Does." S1/S2 Jack is back!--Cory Barker
(02/03/10 11:47pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Let’s be honest – Valentine’s Day (or Singles Awareness Day, if you prefer) is probably not on the list of most celebrated holidays in pop culture, and the upcoming film “Valentine’s Day” does not appear likely to change that perception. Hollywood seems obsessed not with maintaining relationships but rather with filling the coffers of California divorce attorneys. However, there are some pop-culture couples, real and fictional, who are worth toasting this V-Day.Trista & Ryan Sutter: Trista was the first contestant on ABC’s reality dating show “The Bachelorette,” and her marriage to Ryan remains the only successful relationship from the show’s entire run. ABC even financed and televised their marriage ceremony, a frothy-pink concoction that had Ryan visibly squirming on camera. That’s why I love them, though – not only did they survive the doom of a reality showmance, but they also made it through a reality show wedding. Now they have two non-reality-show children (though they do make the cover of People magazine every now and again) and appear to be living happily ever after.Robert Downey, Jr. & Susan Downey: Susan Downey supported her husband in perhaps the best way possible: she produced the movie “Iron Man,” which propelled RDJ back to superstardom after drug addiction took him out of the spotlight years ago. Now he makes sure to include a shout-out to her in his hilarious acceptance speeches at awards shows, and she walks the red carpet looking glamorous by his side. They also do red-carpet interviews together, which are generally funny and adorable. Here’s hoping their streak of making great movies and staying happily married continues with “Iron Man 2.”Jim Halpert & Pam Beesly: I may not be the biggest fan of “The Office,” but the single show element that has never failed to be great is the relationship between Jim and Pam (a.k.a. “Jam”). Their wedding under Niagara Falls was one of the most perfect three minutes of TV I’ve seen in a long time. Here’s hoping the writers continue to treat “Jam” well as the show continues.Beyonce & Jay-Z: When the current queen of R&B married the reigning king of rap, I was surprised the universe didn’t implode from their collective star power. They’ve only become more famous and powerful since since Hova put a ring on it; each has had massive hit songs (“Single Ladies” and “Empire State of Mind”) and has been increasingly visible in the overall pop-culture sphere. But while I respect their commitment to keeping their relationship private, would it kill them to do a public appearance or two together?“Coach” Eric & Tami Taylor: No list of pop-culture power couples is complete without mentioning the marriage at the heart of “Friday Night Lights.” Four seasons in, Kyle Chandler and Connie Britton inhabit their characters like second skins, and their performances render Coach and Tami’s relationship as one of depth, nuance and unconditional love. They fight all the time, they view parenting differently, and work issues continue to crop up, but the Taylors face problems with compassion and understanding. Laugh if you want to, but I maintain that theirs is a relationship to emulate in the real world.
(01/21/10 1:09am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I can’t go anywhere on campus without discussing MTV’s latest reality smash, “Jersey Shore,” with somebody. And not just because I’m obsessed with it. It has captured the zeitgeist seemingly overnight — late night talk shows love having The Situation, Pauly D and Snooki as guests, and references to the show are all over Web sites like “Texts From Last Night.” Snooki, in particular, seems to have a large fan base, including her very own Facebook fan page. How could she not? Her diminutive stature coupled with her absurd “poof” hairstyle and frighteningly orange skin gives her an appearance more befitting a cartoon character than an actual person. She also possesses many talents, including dancing and applying bronzer. (Just don’t ask her how to work a duck phone.) Recently, Snooki has become a lightning rod of controversy by basically endorsing steroids during an interview on the nearly-departed “The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien,” as well as outlining her populist tanning-beds-for-all agenda on “The Jay Leno Show.” The latter claim resulted in an outraged press release from television watchdog group Parents Television Council. The PTC are advocates for network and basic cable programming free of vulgar language or graphic sexual content, but press release author Marybeth Hicks laid into Snooki for the tanning bed comment, saying “It’s disconcerting that (she) could have any sort of influence or be a role model ... or advocate something like tanning beds that could cause cancer.” Yes, you read that correctly: the PTC apparently believes that viewers of “Jersey Shore” see Snooki and think, “Yes, that’s who I want to be when I grow up — a girl with no self-respect or goal in life save marrying a perma-tanned, ’roided-up party guy.” There are so many things wrong with that idea, I’m not entirely sure where to begin. First, I think the PTC should choose their battles more thoughtfully. A crusade against tanning beds hardly seems the most relevant cause for concern when the “Jersey Shore” cast has thus far regularly exhibited dangerous behaviors like excessive drinking, sleeping around and getting into fist fights on the boardwalk. In fact, they’ve done all those things on camera. I don’t recall the cast ever taking a jaunt down to a local tanning salon, whether on film or in conversation, which is surprising given that tanning is the essential second part of Pauly D and The Situation’s guido motto, “GTL”: gym, tanning, laundry. Second, I doubt that the majority of “Jersey Shore” viewers are watching because it enriches their lives. I say I’m obsessed with the show (because I am), and I say that I love it (because I do), but my appreciation for it is wholly suffused with irony. I love it because everybody’s a drunken mess most of the time, saying things that are so dumb and hilarious that I just cannot look away. I find it completely fascinating that the cast has appropriated the seemingly derogatory term “guido” and turned it into a badge of honor, a label earned by only the most vapid, stereotypical Italian-Americans in the greater New York area. What sort of person aims that low in his aspirations for life? And that’s what the phrase “so bad, it’s good” means to me: The premise may be trashy and the characters may be vapid people doing dumb things and spouting a new, silly metaphor every five seconds (here’s to you, Mike “The Situation” Sorrentino!), but it’s so compelling that it succeeds anyway.
(01/20/10 7:13pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Katharine McPhee’s problem has never been that she lacks a voice that is pretty or powerful. Even on “American Idol,” her problem has always been that she just doesn’t know how to do anything interesting with it. With a new look and different sound, she and her new label were no doubt hoping to have solved the problem. Unfortunately, “Unbroken” doesn’t solve anything. It’s no doubt an improvement over McPhee’s last album, which was a painful, synthesized attempt to appear “current,” but this album’s classic pop seems too safe a choice for someone with an identity crisis. Just when the album picks up momentum, as with first single “Had It All,” it wastes it with a disappointing run of mediocre songs featuring weak arrangements and rote lyrics. It’s all such a disappointment.
(12/27/09 11:00pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Some films probably shouldn’t be musicals. "Nine" is one of them. Give director Rob Marshall, along with writers Michael Tolkin and the late Anthony Minghella, some credit for trying to find coherence in a 117-minute film that simultaneously feels jam-packed and far too short. Musical numbers abound—each of the nine major female characters get at least one song—but mostly fail to make an impression, and one wonders if some of the numbers would have been cut if not for the superstar actress singing them. Consequently, the audience learns too little about all the characters in entirely too much screen time. That’s a shame, because there’s a compelling story beneath all the flash—director Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis) is famous for his early films, but his latest projects have been flops, and he has no idea or script for the movie he’s supposed to be shooting in ten days’ time. He looks for inspiration in memories, lovers, and muses, but can’t seem to find it. Meanwhile, his life as a storyteller (or, as several characters call him, a liar) mixes dangerously with his personal life. The film attempts to draw an introspective portrait of the artist’s psyche, but the inclusion of the songs makes it difficult for the director to maintain a consistent vision. While there are some fine performances in "Nine," (including Marion Cotillard as Contini’s long-suffering wife, Luisa,) the film sinks under the weight of squandered potential and superfluous star power.
(12/03/09 3:26am)
In the latest episode of the podcast, host Cory Barker is joined by Adam Lukach, Kate Colvin and Austin Morris to discuss the top 50 TV programs of the aughts. Part two of two.
(12/03/09 3:23am)
In the latest episode of the podcast, host Cory Barker is joined by Adam Lukach, Kate Colvin and Austin Morris to discuss the top 50 TV programs of the aughts. Part one of two.
(11/03/09 10:20pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Break-up records are nothing new, but few seem as emotionally genuine as The Swell Season’s “Strict Joy.” Glen Hansard & Marketa Irgolva, who became a couple while filming their reality-blurring indie film hit “Once” (which won them an Academy Award for the song “Falling Slowly”), broke up at some point during the creation of “Strict Joy.” And yet, the split resulted in a lush, introspective set of songs which run the gamut from regret (“In Your Arms”) to bitterness (“The Verb”). On standout track “The Rain,” Hansard sings, “I know we’re not where I promised you we would be by now / But maybe it’s a question of who’d want it anyhow,” which is as near as true a statement about relationships as I’ve ever heard. The varied indie/folk/pop-rock sounds offer variety to match the emotive voices of both Hansard and Irglova, especially in harmonies together (as in the gorgeous “Fantasy Man,” led by Irglova.) If only every musician dealt with heartbreak as well as these two.