Too New for News

"He likes to make the poster first and then work backwards from there."

Reviewing something new makes it seem more reviewable. That is a fact. How do you know that. I followed my sentence by with the another sentence stating its factuality. That is a fact. So keeping this fun and functioning fact in mind- let me tackle the open field wide receiver that is Youth in Revolt. Let's set it up- we always root for Michael Cera, who is to quirky awkward teenager what Lapso Apso is to awkward quirky dog. Who cares, he was great in Arrested Development, so you get to hang as many sliders as you want kid. And he hasn't been bad in those roles and those movies haven't been god awful, so now we give him something he can sink his indie cred teeth into. I mean look at this poster. Look at that face. We are at the pinnacle of marketing that face. It is all down hill from here in that faces marketing. Youth in Revolt is going to make him Guitar Hero or just another easy setting playing the same beginner level songs. More set up? Yea- good point. They have given Michael a modern cult novel where he has to play duel roles and take the lead in stringing together a series of misfit characters. Now the cult novel part- talking about setting up for failure. Staunch advocates of said book are probably either A- classicly say the book is better, and/or B- not see the movie. Ouch. Being a fan of the book, I saw it- so that leaves me at an A. Detail. Love the detail of Youth in Revolt, which is all but cut out because you know- movies. Regardless, Michael Cera was given a hell of a supporting cast here. The Mighty Buscemi, Fred Willard, Zach G, Jean Smart, Paul Hogan, the car from Knight Rider, 12 cases of raw sugar cane... All of whom were freakishly underused. Freakishly. Like the movie was sort of demented and scary for not using such talents more. But this is all about my fair Michael, who acts ably along the heavyweights here, putting the movie on his shoulders and even within his dual character scenes- out acts himself! Wow. So as a movie, not bad at all thanks to the story focused tempo by Miguel 'You've my attention" Arteta. So I'm not worried about Michael Cera anymore, no more complaining about him or his more success than I'll ever see even though we're the same age. He's going places. I don't know what places, because I'm fairly certain this movie won't be a huge success. It was around the C+ area, but holy fuck did the marketing kill this movie. So if you see the movie, please don't read the book or remember the preview. Also leave a trail of your hair and blood to become '1' with the places you have stepped. Ended.

Making your way in the world today takes MOST things you got

Stay with me on this one: I'm reviewing watching Cheers Randomly

Not a specific episode, (but I'll contradict that later), not 'in general', but a more in general in general. The flipping through TV when nothing is on and you see Sam Malone in tight jeans and a tie for some reason and wonder what's up with him? The review is lying more in that decision to stay tuned. Break it into digestible pieces? Why do we want to stay on this Cheersnnal (Chan-eers)? Because we were told Cheers is a great show. That is what was passed down to me as a young man, that Cheers is a more than capable sitcom full of memorable characters and it had a baby and called it Frasier. I was alive and functioning more for Frasier and saw all of its critical success- so Cheers to me (me- slender, good looking, bad looking (eye sight wise), versed in the succession of sitcom pantheon glory, and, most importantly, stoned) is a breathing in of what adults in the 80s clinged to in order to fill the special void in their life. So watching Cheers now- enjoying the temperament of Norm- feisty but anchored deep in a sadness that the alcohol is numbing (Great TV, Norm is). Getting slightly annoyed with Cliff, but his voice is so welcoming and sincere that I'm not going to fault the man (this episode he wrote a letter to a weather woman for some reason)- so good job Pixar!, and remembering Woody Harrelson was on Cheers and taking note of his performance, because- for some undaeliable (a word I made up meaning REALLY? as an adjective) he is the most successful cast member to come out of Cheers (you saw this coming Danson. you saw it and did nothing to stop it). Also- I have to point out- this was Kirstie Alley era. I prefer Shelley Long era because I'm afraid to be attracted to Kirstie Alley. Anyway- she wanted a tea room in Cheers. Now, as stated, I'm not well versed in Cheers and I am assuming everyone hates the Kirstie Alley era on Cheers, and I hope that everyone hated her character. I know enough that when I see a series replacement actor adding as something as opposite as a Tea Room to a successful show about a bar- that someone was digging through the well worn plot bin. Will it be successful? Yes because somethng happened and now Sam is mad, but they're character play and cynicism, which takes over being funny, makes everything ok in the end because its Cheers and we love it. Anything else? Oh. It is fun to see Frasier and Lilith interact. I support you Bebe Neuwirth and wish you would come back. I'll keep tuning in randomly. Usually late nights. Before Dave. I think. or in the afternoons? I dunno when its on. But I'm gonna probably not, but maybe won't turn it off right away watch out for Cheers. If only to see a good Carla episode. They should use her more? Did they use her more?

Brave Font Choices Aside

I'm not only reviewing about the 90s, I'm reviewing through the 90s.

Sometimes movies come up. Not sometimes- always. And not movies- life. And movies are one of the best parts of life, which I just bested myself and 3 sentences in. Way to start this review. Because this review is about Airheads. A movie filling the vacant lot of marketing for the early 90s metal loving teenager. And that's where the movie success lies- to me anyway- the movie attached itself to a specific brand of loner, that other loners find comfort in not being that certain brand of loner. And maybe Airheads isn't successful at that as much as I recall. But what I do recall is I was 7 when this movie came out (parenthetical pause) and associate this movie with my 7 year old best friend's oldest brother, who was 15-16, and this was his favorite movie. Think about my mind frame here. Kenny, the 15-16 year old metal head, was the coolest thing ever- he talked back to his parents and swore and he would play the opening riffs of Iron Man in his garage. Now that's a teenager ladies and gentleman. And knowing this is his favorite movie has always put this on a high shelf for me to avoid reaching.

But here I am- all reached and now holding and coddling (and fizzalting and murderballing). Let's just cut some of this meat of the bone for a second: Brendan Fraser stars. Ooo boy. I can say this is his best movie, but I feel better saying this is a movie he is in that I can watch. Brendan Fraser not your poison? Well we have Adam Sandler. I'm not going to fault him for his character. Instead I'm going to ignore it and solely focus my attention on the third starring member of the Lone Rangers (they can't pluralize that)--- Steve Buscemi. The only believable member of the band? Absotuvely. Disappears into another person that is so specific to a certain type of the overall metal head that you know a guy exactly like him, and now like that guy better because Steve Buscemi nailed his character in a movie? Always. Did he have the best line in the movie? Debatable - he chanted Rodney King for no real reason, he also said Lemmy is God, which is a great fact to believe in blindly. I'm not going to dwell on how great Steve Buscemi is because I already did, but we have a fine performance from Chris Farley, who died, and now we cherish everything he is in because he isn't in things anymore. We also have 'wish we have more' Joe Mantegna, Reg E. Kathey, and Judd Nelson. But the best scenes, the ones stolen to outshine the entire movie itself (probably- why else would I watch airheads? I'm questioning my motives now)- Michael Richards seems like he has his own movie within Airheads. Crawling through air ducts is some tough acting, and to make every inch of movement so enjoyable as only the Mike Rich can do--- its beauty. I said scenes and I did have another in mind: Michael McKean's in depth look at radio station money grubbing culminating in his character's tied down to a chair trying to open a door with his tounge and mouth acting- which if there was a youtube click I would post and there would be a million hits to. That story was recently made funnier by a friend who told me they tried to imitate McKean's door trick when they were a kid and got hit in the mouth by their mom- hilarious- and really why I even wrote about Airheads in the first place. I need a conclusion- Airheads, what you were trying to be I'm not buying- this is no great cult rock n roll, against the corporation, metal rules movie. It's a movie where people I like watching act, get to act. And that's all I ever wanted. Ever feather ferver.

Meta-sexual

I am reviewing you reading this, or me writing this. I just said that to be confusing.

Now, excuse me, RIGHT now, I am reviewing Dumb Reviews. A review site. It sits a top a featherbed of shattered glass that is the tear drops from so many underweight prize fighters in Honduras. Keep those elbows meaty, you feignly interesting sons and daughters. See? See! This is where dumb reviews loses you. I wrote that sentence in about 10 seconds without much stopping to think. I re read it and it made some sense (something made of something leading to something that trails off). But just because your purpose can be that you have no purpose, doesn't make it interesting. You gotta pull in those reigns. Make things relatable to the common man (that's you fat ass!), and only sometimes for the most part- do this for yourself.

So lets officially state some things because no one else will, and I should. It was never stated clearly before, but dumb reviews was a joke site (ztated kalearalay now?), in that reviewing a record is kind of a dumb idea these days because music is so readily available that you can just check it out for yourself. So I chose albums I knew that I knew about and that was pretty much the extent of their part. The following 'reviews' of them would be ideas I had that didn't apply to anything but themself. No correlation ever to a record. Sometimes bands with google alerts on their name would contact me, but I can't really prove that so here's the next sentence. Can you see how bored I am talking about the 'former' dumb reviews agenda? Took album, didn't write anything about it. Too high a concept for anyone to truly care about, and now its been months. Now? Yesterday I reviewed Duplicity, with some actual semblance of a review. I didn't aim for anything in particular, just conveyed my thoughts by typing on a blog. Duplicity is far from a new release, I just happened to watch it, and criticize it while I did so. So that's where this landed, I had access to post on a blog site that had review in the title, and I wrote in it yesterday and right now.

In a much more SKIP AHEAD TO HERE to get the jist of things- dumb reviews will no longer serve as a point for me to entertain myself and to see how to alienate myself from any of you. But it now just a site where something is reviewed. There. Things are out and things are open. Oh, and I'm not going to update this consistently.

Sunglasses do make you seem like you're living

This is a review of the movie duplicity, not the actual occurrence nor the actual movie poster.

And we come back with this? And we start off the comb-back like this? 2 questions, that's enough. Let's talk about this and wait for answers at twelve other points. This is Duplicity. A movie we see not because we've been clamoring for Julia Roberts to pick up her slack (her mouth is mostly slack), nor we trust in Clive Owens (we don't trust him, his name is clive, he is good, he has stubble, can't trust that, can't play 2 on 2 with that, 5 on 5 sure, 827 on 827 if only), No we see Duplicity because of Tony Gilroy and how much we love Michael Clayton. You are on the internet so you can google Tony Gilroy's body and his body of screen writing credits (Bourne Again), but this is his second "I am a man, I am a director" movie with the first one setting a bar too high. What? I love Michael Clayton. George Clooney puts movies on his back and runs around and poses with it and its awesome. I love Michael Clayton, but this isn't a Michael Clayton post. It's not even an Audio Science Clayton post (REFERENCE!). So what do I say about Duplicity- it kept my attention and it bored me in colors. Pretty standard schluck dwelved out by pretty great performances and it ends satisfyingly enough for me to remember I saw it. THATS WHAT YOU GET OUT OF A REVIEW FROM ME. I'm not here to wax intellectual on anything (yes I am) I'm just here for some sentences, some misproper palcement of some letters, and to remind myself that I am a functioning member of society. So you want a better review? Well I'm not finished, how bout that? About that: we got 2 of the greats in this one. Tommy Tubs Wilkinson and Paul G-I, g-i, Giammati. Lets start with the Wilk. Now- arguably Tom's best role was his Oscar snubbed performance as Arthur in Michael Clayton, but here ol Gilroy uses him sparingly. Uses him well, but sparingly. Tom Wilkinson is so adept at becoming part of the movie he's in (In the Bedroom), his character so interwoven into the story (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) that you don't feel bad for not noticing him, but when you do notice him- you have to wonder why. He was noticed in Mike Clayton because, ahem, holy shit he's fucking awesome. And here, he is noticed for being a strong part providing some much needed anger in a movie that needed a lot more of it. As for Pig Vomit Paul (that's not an insult, that's endearment), though only used more slightly than TW, had the scene that stole the show. A good review would give you the back story and set it up. I'm just going to say that if you're looking for a big corporate speech full of cheesy self mocking inside jokes and too close to home crowd play - see Michael Scott when Dwight had to give his speech. But if you want a realistic version of that with more intensity- Duplicty has a scene for you. Duplicity is a stupid name for a movie, and I had to google it to see what it meant. Apparantly it's a shade of Lavender only dogs can see. Here's to a clean kitchen.