Nanny McPhee Returns

It's always seems odd to see a kids' movie promoted on the Daily Show. Sure, I know that parents must make up some of the show's audience, but to me, it seems like such a college program. (Though that's probably because I started watching it in college). I have a hard time reviewing movies for kids, because-- I hate to admit it-- I've become a children's movie snob. I still love watching favorites from my childhood, even the bad ones since nostalgia makes up for a weak story and bad acting. My favorite movie of all time is a children's movie (Pixar's Up). I actually watch children's movies and read children's books all the time. But when a movie comes out that doesn't have the nostalgia of The Wiz or the heart and strong story of Up (or practically anything else by Pixar), I'm critical. I can't watch it from a child's point of view.

All that being said, Nanny McPhee Returns was better than I expected. But I didn't expect much. The basic storyline: Isabel (Maggie Gyllenhaal) is a young mother, looking after three children and struggling to keep up the family farm while her husband is at war. It's tough enough making ends meet, and when two spoiled cousins are thrown into the mix, causing all five children start behaving badly, Isabel is pushed to her wits end. Enter Nanny McPhee (Emma Thompson) who, using magic, teaches these children five lessons.

Sound like a mix between Mary Poppins and Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle? It is. Though I'd recommend reading those books (or watching the Poppins movie) rather than picking up a copy of Nanny McPhee Returns. Though there were moments when the movie had the wonderful feel of a storybook brought to life (similar to the tone of the fabulous show Pushing Daisies), they were fleeting. The acting was fine, but the story just didn't do it for me. And enough with the bodily function jokes already. I know kids love 'em, but kids will laugh at other kinds of jokes, too.

Nanny McPhee Returns gets a 2/5. It wasn't awful, but I won't watch it again, either.

Watch Jon Stewart's interview with Emma Thompson

Buy the movie

Talking Funny

You may be wondering, “Wasn’t Talking Funny promoted in the 2011 season of the Daily Show? Doesn’t that mean you don’t have to review it?” Yes, that’s true, I don’t have to. But on Friday night I happened to watch it, and I also happened to need something to review for this week, so it worked out all around.

Talking Funny, an HBO special created by Ricky Gervais, consists of Gervais, Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock, and Louis C.K. sitting around and talking about comedy for about 45 minutes. However, despite the title, Talking Funny is just not funny. Granted, I don’t know that humor is its intention; instead of making jokes, the four comedians talk about standup, how they got involved, and their take on the trade.

To be honest, I was disappointed. Though their discussions were interesting enough, when four of my favorite comedians are together, I want to hear some jokes, damn it! Also, Seinfeld came across as pretty self-involved and arrogant—and not in a funny, intentional way like Gervais does. And sometimes the conversation wasn’t that engaging (who cares whether or not Rock does a sound check?). Neither funny nor interesting? No thank you!

There’s really not that much to say about the special; it was okay, worth the 45 minutes it took to watch, but not that much more. It gets a 2/5. However, if you’re looking for some great stuff by these comedians, catch an episode of Seinfeld or Louie (the best rated TV show in Daily Shill history), watch Chris Rock’s documentary Good Hair, or watch one of Gervais’s “Out of England” comedy specials.

Watch Jon Stewart's interview with Ricky Gervais

Going the Distance

I’ll admit it, I liked Going the Distance more than I expected I would. But since I expected to hate it, that doesn’t mean much.

Going the Distance covers the relationship between Garrett (Justin Long) and Erin (Drew Barrymore). Though the two knew they would only be in the same city for six weeks (and therefore intended to avoid anything serious), they just liked each other so much they needed to give a long distance relationship a try. As one might expect, it gets complicated. (What if they made a movie about a couple who decided to have a long distance relationship and all went well? What would you call that one?)

Going the Distance couldn’t seem to decide if it wanted to be a comedy or a romance, and the mix it settled on just didn’t work for me. There would be a bit that made me laugh out loud (even though I was watching the movie by myself) and then a long dry spell where the relationship was awkwardly advanced (or lots of bad jokes were made). The plot-specifics were too predictable—there was that one out of place conversation in the movie that was clearly setting up the end of the movie. However, even despite these problems, it seemed that all the movie needed to be decent was another draft or two to tighten some jokes and add some subtlety.

Barrymore overacted and often looked too old for her part, but none of the other actors are worth complaining about. There were enjoyable cameo/sidekick roles played by several people I love including Jason Sudeikis, Jim Gaffigan, and the Daily Show’s own Rob Riggle and Kristen Schaal.

I’m giving Going the Distance a 2/5. It’s not a waste of time, but not worth seeking out. And it’s not worth writing more than a few short paragraphs about.

Watch Jon Stewart’s interview with Drew Barrymore

Buy the DVD

Third World America

I’m going to begin this review with a digression. Let’s talk about Arianna Huffington. Despite the fact that her name (and online journalism) has been around for a while, I unintentionally managed to go a long time without hearing anything she said or reading anything she wrote. I vaguely knew that she was similar to me on the political spectrum (if a bit more liberal) and assumed that I would enjoy her book.

And then I saw her on Conan. In the interview, she was asked why she owns three blackberries. Hold it, I thought, What does any one person need with three blackberries. One blackberry? Completely reasonable. Two blackberries? Silly, but understandable if you needed to talk and browse the internet at the same time. Three? Terribly excessive! Is it even possible to use three blackberries? I was actually interested to hear how she justified her ownership. But what did she respond with? Some story about how she fainted, tried to cut back her blackberry use to only two (because they caused her fainting?), but was now back to using three. In other words, no real answer.

Ever since I saw that interview in December, I can’t stop thinking about the ridiculousness of owning three blackberries, and, slowly, I have become more and more angry with Huffington for her ownership. Here she is, in theory a champion for the lower and middle class, and she owns three blackberries. I’m not saying that if you have money you should donate it all and never buy yourself nice things. What I’m saying is that maybe you shouldn’t have three of the exact same nice thing.

So, now for the review. As you can gather, I didn’t go into the book with the best opinion of the author. However, I assumed she would be a good writer (considering the fact that her career is based on it) and thought the book wouldn’t be so bad. Turns out, it was a false assumption, but more on that later.

In Third World America: How our Politicians are Abandoning the Middle Class and Betraying the American Dream, Huffington presents a cavalcade of depressing facts about the state of America, making the point that if we don’t make some big changes, the country will lose its status as a world leader and, indeed, a first-world country. The book is split into five sections, each finishing with first-hand accounts from suffering, formerly middle class Americans. The final section provides actions America needs to take to avoid its great decline.

Politically, I should have felt myself agreeing with the points Huffington made. I should have read what she wrote and been spurred to action. Instead, because it was written in such an abrasive, accusatory matter, I found myself reacting defensively, thinking “She’s being too harsh. It’s not really that bad.” (Even though, chances are good that for many people, it is). Couple the accusatory tone with a glut of weak and clichéd metaphors, awful puns, and out-of-place pop culture references, and you’re left with an unpleasant reading experience.

The final section of the book, where Huffington presents potential solutions, was the best part, though I would have liked to have more actions individuals can take, and fewer proposals of large (and unrealistic) overhauls.

Despite my many complaints, I’m giving Third World America a 2/5. It did present interesting facts about America’s current state, and had I not been so anti-Huffington prior to reading, I may have cut the book more slack.

Watch Jon Stewart's interview with Arianna Huffington

Buy the Book

White House Diary

Happy Martin Luther King Jr. Day! Did you know that this day was named a holiday by the Carter administration? I didn’t—until I read White House Diary by Jimmy Carter (check out that segue!).

White House Diary is an absolutely enormous book that collects the daily diary entries that Carter made during his years as president. The book is massive, but only contains about a quarter of the entries Carter made—which was a relief; the book is long enough as is. Occasionally, between entries, present-day Carter makes clarifying comments, but generally the entries stand for themselves.

The events that took place during the Carter administration are in my “black hole of history” (they happened before I was born, but after the farthest I got in history class). In that sense, reading White House Diary was a good thing for me. However, especially in the “first year” of the book, it was difficult to become engaged. The problem with the diary entry format is that almost all entries consist of daily activities (like, spoke with Jody, swam with Amy), which gets pretty dry. Though it got more exciting in the later years when the presidency started facing bigger issues (and boy were there a lot of them in the last few years), I still would’ve rather read a biography on the period. In fact, many times while reading, I thought, “this would be a great resource for a biographer.”

The best part of the book is the afterword, where Carter discusses mistakes he made and things he would have done differently in his presidency. In it (and, throughout the whole book, really) Carter struck me as an intelligent, modest, good man.

I’ve been waffling between giving White House Diary a 2 and a 3. I’m going to settle and give it a 2/5; it’s not great for casual reading, but any Carter buff (do they exist?) would enjoy it.

And now, I will leave you with the beginning of my favorite diary entry, December 25, 1978:
“On Christmas Day the Egyptians prayed that my hemorrhoids would be cured because I was a good man, and the following day they were cured. I was tempted to make a public announcement thanking the Egyptians but decided that we’d had enough publicity with my ailment.”
Turns out Carter is a funny man, too.

Watch Jon Stewart’s interview with Jimmy Carter

Buy the Book

Squirrel Seeks Chipmunk

I am a big fan of David Sedaris; I even claim he is my favorite author from time to time (though I can’t actually settle on one). So I was thrilled when his latest book Squirrel Seeks Chipmunk was featured on a Daily Show interview. After all, it was one I was going to read regardless.

Squirrel Seeks Chipmunk is different than most of Sedaris’s books; rather than memoir, it is a collection of short stories centering on animals with human traits. The stories reminded me of fables, except that there were few morals, and it certainly would not be fit for children.

Though the concept is hilarious (as is Sedaris’s original title: Let’s Explore Diabetes with Owls), most of the stories did not make it there. As my dad, who read the first four stories in the book before giving up, said, “It’s just not funny enough.” True, there were some stories like “The Cow and the Turkey” and “The Judicious Brown Hen” that made me laugh, but for each of them, there are two “The Migrating Warblers,” that weren’t worth reading.

I think I would have a different opinion had I listened to the audio book rather than reading a physical copy. Sedaris has performed a handful of these stories on the radio show This American Life, and I thought they were amusing there; Sedaris just has a way of making anything sound funny. Of course, had I gone with the audio book, I would have missed the wonderful illustrations done by Ian Falconer (best known for the Olivia series of picture books). And missing those would have been a shame.

As much as it pains me to give a Sedaris book a low rating, Squirrel Seeks Chipmunk gets a 2/5. If you’re a fan, it’s worth picking up to see if you agree with me—it’s a short book and shouldn’t take much longer than an hour to read—but otherwise, I wouldn’t steer you towards it.

Watch Jon Stewart’s interview with David Sedaris (very funny)

Buy the book

Don't forget to come back next Monday-Thursday for a new review each day.

Teaching the Pig to Dance

Between his careers in acting and politics, Fred Thompson could probably write a semi-interesting autobiography. Instead, however, he chose to focus his autobiography, Teaching the Pig to Dance: A Memoir of Growing Up and Second Chances, on his childhood. That was a mistake. See, the problem is, not many unusual and exciting things happened to Thompson as a child.

Thompson takes us through his childhood, sharing stories of his family, his dog, and the trouble he got into in school (which, of course, are not in chronological order because that would make me too happy). What Thompson didn’t share, though, was why we should care. The only parts of the book that kept me interested were the parts where he veered away from his childhood and talked about how he got into acting and how, as a young man, he balanced raising a young family with attending law school.

Thompson did have the right touch for how much politics to put into his book. Even though Teaching the Pig to Dance was an autobiography, I expected it to tell me why I should be a conservative. However, though Thompson gave his reasons for aligning himself with the conservative side (despite hailing from a democratic-voting family), he did not use his book as a platform to recruit for the party. It was the perfect amount of politics.

Thompson’s writing was unremarkable; it was neither engaging nor hard to follow. Once I picked it up, it didn’t take long to get through the pages, but I was not inspired to pick it up in the first place. Keeping that in mind, Teaching the Pig to Dance gets a 2/5.

Watch Jon Stewart’s interview with Fred Thompson

Buy the book

My grad school work is really picking up, so it may be a bit longer before my next review. But, rest assured, I’m not giving up!

A New American Tea Party

Despite being a Liberal, I approached John O’Hara’s book A New American Tea Party: The Counterrevolution Against Bailouts, Handouts, Reckless Spending, and More Taxes with an open mind. In his interview, O’Hara seemed intelligent and reasonable, and I thought that his book could perhaps allow me to see what the tea party movement was striving to be before the crazy latched on.

For about the first third of the book, O’Hara gave me what I was looking for: he shared the history of the development of the tea party, explaining where they were coming from, with only a few snarky comments about the Democrats and Liberals. Though I didn’t agree with much of what O’Hara was saying, I could understand where he was coming from. And then he made the switch from recounting tea party history to bashing the media, President Obama, unions, and health care. The occasional anti-liberal joke expanded into mean-spirited rants, and all of a sudden A New American Tea Party was reading like every other political book. And that’s not a good thing.

Pardon me, while I break into this review to go on a little rant of my own about how much I hate political books. I hate them! The authors of these books—whether Democrat or Republic, Liberal or Conservative – talk about all the great things that their party does and all the terrible things the other guys do, and they back it up with facts. The trouble is, people on the other end of the political spectrum believe the complete opposite, and they have facts to back it up too. As a reader, this leaves me with nothing I can believe. I can’t trust the political writer because I know they will never say anything bad about their own party or anything good about their opponents, despite the fact that both sides have good and bad ideas, good and bad supporters. And that is why I hate political books. Now back to the review.

O’Hara is not a bad writer. He varies his sentence structure (and length), transitions adeptly, and spends a reasonable amount of time on each subject. But his book made me mad, and I didn’t enjoy reading it. It gets a 2/5.

Watch Jon Stewart’s interview with John O’Hara Part 1 Part 2

Buy the book

Things may slow down here at the Daily Shill over the next several months. I just started grad school this week, so I’ll be spending less time on my mission. But I’ll keep chipping away at this and try to make at least 4 reviews a month.

Death at a Funeral

Death at a Funeral is a movie filled with zillions of characters, each with his orher own problems, who are all thrown together at a family funeral. Here’s just a sampling: Aaron (Chris Rock) is saddled with the burden of planning and paying for his father’s funeral while his younger brother Ryan (Martin Lawrence) gets all the admiration from family without doing anything. Elaine (Zoe Saldana) is planning on revealing to the family that she is going to marry her boyfriend Oscar (James Marsden), but accidently gives him LSD, which causes him to hallucinate and act inappropriately. Norman (Tracy Morgan) has been given the responsibility for looking after crotchety Uncle Russell (Danny Glover). And then there’s the mysterious little person who appears at the funeral, revealing something about Aaron’s father that his family never knew.

That’s just a fraction of the many plotlines that Death at a Funeral puts forward. Unfortunately, I did not find the majority of them to be funny. Watching Marsden’s trip and the chaos it caused was the only part of the movie that made me laugh; generally, the jokes were lowest common denominator. Additionally, though Rock is an excellent comedian, his serious acting left more to be desired – much of his delivery sounded like emotionless reading.

Though Death at a Funeral’s glut of characters and situations took away from the movie as a whole, it kept the time moving quickly. Even though I wasn’t really enjoying it, I didn’t find myself counting the minutes until the movie was finished. Still, I wouldn’t recommend it. It gets a 2/5.

Watch Jon Stewart’s interview with Tracy Morgan (This is a funny one. For some reason, Morgan reminds me so much of my paternal grandfather in this clip. I know that's irrelevant, but since many of the people who read this are my relatives, I figured I'd put it out there.)

Buy the DVD

Revolutionaries

It bothers me that the Revolutionary War doesn’t interest me; for heaven’s sake, without it, I certainly wouldn’t be here. So, when I picked up Jack Rakove’s book, Revolutionaries: A New History of the Invention of America, I was determined to put extra effort into appreciating what I read Unfortunately, this massive book wasn’t really about the Revolutionary War at all. Instead, it gave countless details about the founding fathers’ lives and the forming of America while hardly touching on the war itself. It was terribly boring.

One of the things that I struggled with most while reading Revolutionaries was that other than chronology, there was no through-line; Rakove would spend much of a chapter talking all about someone like John Dickinson and then never come back to him. I wasn’t able to connect with anyone he talked about.

Rakove won a Pulitzer Prize in 1997, which caused me to expect meaningful writing. As a whole, I was disappointed, but in two brief sections, Rakove drew me in. The first was a discussion about Americans’ difficulty reconciling the good things Thomas Jefferson did with the fact that he owned slaves (and the terrible way he treated them); the other was on the 3/5s compromise.

Those two moments, and the fact that a Revolutionary War buff would probably like the book, cause me to give Revolutionaries a 2/5. But, read at your own risk. I am not a fan.

Watch Jon Stewart’s interview with Jack Rakove

Buy the book.

It's DEAR Day. So Drop Everything and Read.

Repo Men

Typically, I try to avoid reading reviews of the movies that I know I’m going to see for the Daily Shill; I don’t want to go into the movies with my expectations skewed by another’s opinion. But when my dad set aside the Detroit Free Press’s review of Repo Men for me with a post-it sarcastically reading, “Looks like your kind of movie,” I had to read the review. It wasn’t a flattering one, and its headline “Gruesome Slice of Life” fit the film. Repo Men is disgustingly violent, and though its premise had some potential, it was poorly executed.

In the future world portrayed in Repo Men, scientists have discovered how to create artificial organs so that those who need replacements do not need to wait for a donor. However, these organs are incredibly expensive, and most who need them are forced to participate in installment payment plans with high interest rates. If these people are unable to keep up with their payments, the company who sold the organs returns to repossess them. This is where Remy (Jude Law) the protagonist comes in. Originally working as one of these repo men, Remy is forced to accept a synthetic heart when some of his repo equipment backfires. He is unable to keep up with his payments, and soon finds himself hiding from the repo men. He flees with Beth (Alice Braga) a woman who herself has several organs up for repossession.

Though the violent story was certainly not to my liking, what bothered me the most was how little I cared for the characters. Even though I’m writing this review less than 10 minutes after I watched the DVD, I had to look up all of the characters names because they didn’t stick with me. The romance between Beth and Remy seems to come out of nowhere, and it is never really clear why Remy cares so much about her.

Additionally, though Repo Men’s concept seems like one that should have a deeper message, it doesn’t succeed in conveying one more sophisticated than “the United States is capitalistic.” I wanted more.

One thing I did like about the movie, though, was its heavy use of vocal jazz standards in the soundtrack. The sharp contrast between the violent futuristic world and the familiar, romantic tunes of the past worked for me.

Repo Men wasn’t as bad as Cop Out or Tooth Fairy, so I’m going to give it a 2/5. It’s not something I’d recommend, particularly if you are at all squeamish, but there are worse things you could watch.

Watch Jon Stewart’s interview with Jude Law

Buy the DVD

Greenberg

Greenberg was weird. I watched the film with my parents last Friday, and after it finished, my dad said, “Well. That was strange. It had funny moments, but I certainly wouldn’t call it a comedy. I don’t know if I liked it or not.” That alone could be my review.

Greenberg’s plot is entirely character driven. Roger Greenberg (Ben Stiller), a 40ish guy with emotional problems who doesn’t know what he’s doing with his life, is house-sitting for his wealthy brother and reconnecting with old friends from California. He also develops a thing (I wouldn’t call it a relationship) with Florence (Greta Gerwig) his brother’s personal assistant. Before she meets Roger, Florence, in her mid-twenties, is struggling finding balance after the end of a serious relationship, and her interactions with Greenberg don’t help any. Greenberg shows both of their lives over the six-week period Roger is house-sitting, not limiting its focus to only the interactions between the two.

My biggest complaint with Greenberg was that it moved incredibly slowly (particularly the first two thirds of the movie). I wanted scenes to be shorter and a little more relevant, and I wanted something to happen. There were some incredibly funny scenes (particularly in the last half), but not nearly enough for it to live up to the quirky comedy the trailer portrayed.

I was hoping that by the time I reached this point in the review, I would know how I wanted to rate Greenberg. I liked the characters, I liked the jokes, I thought the acting was well done, but I can’t say the same about the movie as a whole. I’m going to give it a 2/5, though part of that low rating can be attributed to expecting a comedy and getting a drama with some funny moments.

Watch Jon Stewart’s interview with Ben Stiller

Buy the film

Sorry it's been so long since I last posted. I'm currently making my way through the incredibly long biography of Willie Mays, though I hope to finish it by the end of the weekend.

Y Not (Day of Reviews, Post 4)

I love the Beatles. And the role that Ringo Starr played in the band was the perfect place for him. He can’t quite pull off being the front man/songwriter like he attempts to in his album Y Not.

Generally, I’d say the music of Y Not isn’t bad, particularly the guitar-heavy songs like “Fill in the Blanks” and “Peace Dreams.” The lyrics, though, are unmoving and predictable. It’s an album you can play the “Guess what the last word of the next lyric is Game” and win every time. And the title track, “Y Not,” was just terrible all around: music, lyrics, and misspelling a word on purpose.

If you’re a big Ringo Starr fan, you probably know what you’re getting and would enjoy the CD. If you’re not, I wouldn’t lead you to it. It gets a 2/5.

Watch Ringo Starr play "Walk With You" on the Daily Show.

He also played With a Little Help From My Friends

Buy the CD

And now I’ve reviewed the entire month of January. Progress! There may be one more review today, but this is probably the last one. Have a super weekend!

The Bridge

Before I read it, I thought David Remnick’s book The Bridge: The Rise and Life of Barack Obama would be a breath of fresh air. I checked it out from the library at the same time as Marc Thiessen’s Obama-bashing book Courting Disaster and expected the enjoy Remnick’s, if only by comparison. Perhaps I would have had I read The Bridge directly after Courting Disaster. However, in addition to those two books, I had also borrowed A Captain’s Duty, Comeback America, and Between Two Worlds, which left me with lots of other reading material. So when I finally picked up Remnick’s gigantic book, Courting Disaster wasn’t on my mind, leaving me disappointed with The Bridge.

The Bridge, in addition to chronicling Obama’s history, attempts to cover the histories of civil rights, black politicians, Chicago politics, and all of Obama’s ancestors. It does not manage these many subjects elegantly. Instead, the book jumps from one to another, sharing irrelevant information, not even following a simple chronological order. The sections directly dealing with Obama were the book’s strongest, but even those could have used a lot more work; for instance, the sections about Obama’s early life were filled with quotes from anyone who ever had anything to do with him, giving the book a tabloid-esque feel, and randomly inserted into a chapter about the beginning of Obama’s political career was an in-depth book review of Dreams of my Father.

I wouldn’t say that Remnick is a bad writer, and I appreciated that he didn't portray Obama as someone who is all good (or all bad), but The Bridge was in need of another draft. If the book maintained focus on Obama—rather than taking brief forays into other histories—shortened and cut some of its many quotes, and shifted into a clear organizational structure, it wouldn’t be bad. And it would be much shorter, something I wished it were each time I picked up the 600-page book.

I’m giving The Bridge a 2/5. But unlike the last 2 I gave (Get Him to the Greek), The Bridge is at the low end of the spectrum. I certainly don’t recommend it to you.

Watch Jon Stewart’s interview with David Remnick

Buy the book

Get Him to the Greek

First off, before I jump into the review, I want to apologize for my absence here (not that anyone is really at the edge of their seat waiting for a Daily Shill update.). I just graduated from Kalamazoo College, and the week of graduation and the one following have been crazy busy. But I am back!

I had low expectations going into Get Him to the Greek. Though I thoroughly enjoyed Forgetting Sarah Marshall, the movie where Aldous Snow’s character originated, the trailers did not look good. My expectations were met; the movie was okay.

Get Him to the Greek follows Aaron Green (Jonah Hill), an under-appreciated record company employee, as he attempts to escort washed-out, drugged up rock star Aldous Snow (Russell Brand) to a concert at the Greek Theater. As one might expect, everything that could go wrong in this transportation process, does.

The movie was very hit or miss for me. Though there were some scenes that cracked me up, like the “furry wall” one the movie will likely be remembered for, they were outnumbered by the attempts at humor that didn’t land. I never thought I would say this, but I thought Diddy was the funniest actor/character in the movie. Make of that what you will.

Get Him to the Greek follows the comedy blueprint that has worked well for movies of the past two summers like The Hangover and Superbad: there is some time-sensitive problem (get rock star to the gig, groom to the wedding, or booze to the party) and a duo (or trio) of guys have lots of comical obstacles until they solve it. But unlike in Superbad and The Hangover, I wasn’t endeared to the characters; I just didn’t care if they succeeded in the end. Also, I didn’t laugh as much.

I give Get Him to the Greek a 2/5. It’s a high 2 (I’d rather watch it than read George Lucas’s Blockbusting or Newt Gingrich’s novel), but a 2 nonetheless.

Watch Jon Stewart’s interview with Jonah Hill

I’m currently making my way through David Remick’s biography of Barack Obama. It’s a long one, so it may be a bit before another review. But I will be back!

Weapons of Self Destruction

I will always have a fondness for Robin Williams because of Aladdin and Mrs. Doubtfire, two of my favorite movies as a kid, and The Birdcage and Dead Poets Society, two I enjoy now. However, it turns out that that affection does not extend to his stand-up.

Watching Williams’s comedy act, Weapons of Self Destruction, I was disappointed at how un-funny I found most of his material. Though you could argue that I was not his intended audience—as many of his bits centered on sex, masturbation, and profanity, something thought of as “boy humor” – I expected to enjoy the comedy special more than I did.

Williams did make me laugh, however, with his political jokes. Though those bits mainly consisted of one-sentence summaries of current events that would surprise people from the past, Williams had the timing down and edited these “headlines” in a way to maximize their humor.

I give Weapons of Self Destruction a 2/5. Watching it didn’t make me want to cry, but I wouldn’t recommend it either.

Watch Jon Stewart’s interview with Robin Williams

Buy the DVD (Or, if you have HBO on demand, it is currently watchable there).

The Marriage Ref

I'm ashamed to admit this: I actually enjoyed parts of the Marriage Ref. (I watched the episode with Ricky Gervais, Larry David, and Madonna.)

So the show has this really stupid idea: let's get married couples to send us videos showing their biggest gripe with other, and then we'll decide who wins. (The real answer is neither person wins because America now knows their problems. I guess you could say America wins, but I wouldn't go that far. I think we may lose, too). Anyway, there's this guy, Tom Papa, who isn't funny (but he's supposed to be) who is there every week as "the Ref." His job consists of introducing the couples' videos to the panel and making "the call" (of who wins) in the end. And let me tell you, he gets annoying quickly.

But then, in each episode, there is a different celebrity panel who is there to "advise" (read "make fun of the couple"). To tell the truth, I know this panel is the only reason I liked the show. Larry David and Ricky Gervais are just funny guys (and Madonna, though she wasn't intending to, was a decent straight-man).

Really, the show seems to be a facade to get more than one comedian in the room. They should just ditch the feuding couples and, instead, feature a couple of comedians an episode to riff on anything. Or, to go a different route, ditch everything and start with a brand new show. At one point in the episode I saw, David and Gervais joked about having a reality show where they were roommates. That's actually the show I'd want to see. Jerry Seinfeld, spend your money on that instead.

Despite enjoying parts of the show, I'm only giving it a 2/5. I found all of the regular portions stupid and liked it only because of David and Gervais. Plus, deserves a low score just for interrupting the Closing Ceremony of the 2010 Olympics. Not cool, Marriage Ref. Not cool.

Watch Jon Stewart's interview with Jerry Seinfeld

Watch an episode of the Marriage Ref on Hulu

To Try Men's Souls

I just finished reading Newt Gingrich's novel (yes, novel) To Try Men's Souls, and it was much better than I thought it would be. Maybe it exceeded expectations because I thought I was going to have to read a political book by Gingrich, maybe it did because he wrote it with another guy (William R. Forstchen), or maybe it was better because I read most of it sitting outside in the sunshine. But whatever the reason, I'm grateful.

The book takes place on December 25, 1776, the day when George Washington led the American Army across the Delaware, and it centers on three characters: George Washington, Thomas Paine, and Jonathan Van Dorn (a person I'm pretty sure they just made up). Though I did find myself bored, particularly in Washington's segments, I found myself actually caring what became of Paine and Jonathan. The writing didn't strike me one way or the other. It wasn't bad, but I never found myself thinking "wow, that is a great sentence." (Which is, actually, something I think when I'm reading a good book.)

One thing I appreciated is that Gingrich and Forstchen did not get political in the novel, which made it much easier to read. The introduction made some political statements I didn't agree with (like saying "The modern education establishment has deliberately ignored American-history and minimized the importance of learning about America" p. xv.) but they did not carry into the novel.

I've waffled a lot with my rating for this novel. In the end, I'm giving it a 2/5, but it nearly got a 3. Reading it was not terrible, and, maybe if I liked historical fiction, it would've gotten the higher score. Either way, it definitely seemed like a book my Grandpa would like, and if you're into wartime historical fiction, I might recommend it.

Watch Jon Stewart's interview with Newt Gingrich

Buy the book

The Ricky Gervais Show: not funny

I find Ricky Gervais hilarious. That being said, I didn't once laugh while watching The Ricky Gervais Show on HBO.

For those unaware of the concept, let me catch you up. Ricky Gervais, Stephen Merchant, and Karl Pilkington sit around and talk. Or, rather, Pilkington says something odd, and Gervais and Merchant make fun of him for what he says (and for how round his head is). This whole thing began as a podcast (with the same title), though it has recently expanded into an animated show on HBO.

The medium of the show puzzles me; why animate three guys sitting around talking? Sure, you're able to also animate whatever it is they're talking about, but there's also a lot of time spent showing three men sitting at a table. Also (and I'm not sure here), I think the show might've been funnier if I could see the men's facial expressions. But, even casting humor aside, the Ricky Gervais Show was not that interesting. As a whole, the show worked better as a podcast (though I wasn't a huge fan of that either) because people often are occupied while listening to podcasts and split their attention. Sitting down and entirely focusing on the conversation these men were having caused me to quickly lose interest.

There's not much more to say about the Ricky Gervais Show. It wasn't funny or good, it wasn't terrible. I won't watch the show again, but I'm not cursing the 22 minutes of my life that this episode took up. I give it a 2/5.

Watch Jon Stewart's interview with Ricky Gervais

Go to The Ricky Gervais Show's website

George Lucas's Blockbusting, a flop.

I bet you thought I gave up, didn’t you? But no, I am here, and “The Daily Shill” is finally in motion.

I’ve just finished reading the enormous George Lucas’s Blockbusting, and, to tell the truth, I’m unimpressed. Blockbusting reads like the love child of a middle-school textbook and an imdb trivia page. Though it has plenty of fun facts, they are hidden within the poor writing and uninteresting talk of which actors and directors were originally set to participate in the film.

Blockbusting separates film history into decade chapters from pre-1909 to the 2000s. Each chapter begins with history of the decade’s movie business and graphs that (in my opinion) have far too much to do with finance, and it ends with two-page profiles on selected movies. It is these profiles that I have the biggest problems with. For the most part, the writing is just terrible. Sentences regarding completely different topics are placed next to each other without any transitions. Here is a sample, from the blurb on 1934’s Cleopatra. I swear, these four sentences were printed next to each other:

“Costumer Travis Banton had done his homework, researching historical Egyptian and Roman designs, but his priority on [Claudette] Colbert’s costumes was to reveal as much of her figure as industry censors would permit in the last days before a toughened Production Code took effect on July, 1 1934. Since Colbert feared snakes, her scenes with the snake were put off until the very end. DeMille first saw English actor Henry Wilcoxon while in a projection booth at Paramount and cast him as Marc Antony in his first lead role. DeMille was a stickler for accurate details” (Alex Ben Block, 185).

While reading the majority of the blurbs, I was tempted to pull out a red pen and edit them. But then this book would have taken me even longer to read, and I was ready for it to end.

Despite my distaste, I can see how a movie buff (who does not happen to be an English major) would enjoy Blockbusting. To tell the truth, I’ve only seen 62 of the 300 selected films, and I was definitely more interested in reading the write-ups of the movies I’d seen. But, for the most part, reading this book was a chore. I’ll admit I did quite a bit of skimming, especially in the early decades. A few extracts from the notes I took while reading the 1930s section:

“It’s becoming a disappointment every time I turn the page and it is still a movie I don’t know.”

“I’m getting more and more frustrated that I actually bought this book.”

My attitude did improve slightly when I reached later decades, but, were it not for my challenge, I would have put the book down for good.

If anything, though, reading George Lucas’s Blockbusting has inspired me to watch more movies. Before I try to resell this book, I plan on writing down the list of the featured movies and marking ones that piqued my interest. But even though I got that out of it, I wouldn’t recommend the book. I give it a 2/5, and that’s being generous.

Watch Jon Stewart's interview with George Lucas

Buy the book (but, really, I wouldn't)