Rocking with Rockwell

It's still Halloween for a few more minutes, so I got this in on time.

The video for Somebody's Watching Me scared the shit out of me when I was about 8 or 9. Earlier tonight, I was telling someone about it, and how the song is the one used in those annoying Geico ads with the stack of money with the googly eyes, and I just got a blank look. So for anyone else culturally unaware--or, er, under the age of 25, who have never heard of Rockwell, or possibly even music videos--here is a true classic.

Fun fact: Back when VH1 would not only run videos, but videos aimed primarily at people in their 30s and 40s--Phil Collins, Michael Bolton, and Rod Stewart used to be in heavy rotation--they'd air a "Scariest Videos of All Time" special each Halloween. I want to say this was the number two video, right behind Thriller, but I can't be sure. The only other ones I recall from the list were Ray Parker Jr.'s Ghostbusters (which wasn't scary) and The Jackson's Torture (which was even scarier than Somebody's Watching Me, but the song sucked).

Panel of the Week

From Blackest Night #4:

Best Horror Films of the 21st Century

This year wraps up the first decade of the 21st century. And given that it's almost Halloween, and given how discussion of horror films has pretty much dominated the blog this month, and given my OCD-fueled love of making lists, I figured now would be as good a time as any to come up with my list of the ten best horror films of the past decade.

A couple of caveats: As much as I would love to have seen every horror film that's come out in the past ten years, that would only be possible if I were to quit my job and become a shut-in. (Well, more of a shut-in.) But with no job, I couldn't afford to go to movies, or my Netflix subscription, or even an outlet for my DVD player. So a more accurate title might be "Best Horror Films of the 21st Century That I've Seen." Also, try as I might, I've never been able to get into J-Horror. Sorry, Takashi Miike. So an even more accurate title might be "Best American Horror Films of the 21st Century That I've Seen." Except, I guess there are a couple of British films on the list. Maybe "Best Horror Films of the 21st Century Made in English-Speaking Countries That I've Seen"?

But "Best Horror Films of the 21st Century" just sounds better, so no matter how inaccurate it might be, let's go with that.



10) Jeepers Creepers (2001)
A refreshingly simple, straight-forward horror flick (with a disarmingly stupid title), starring a pre-"I'm a Mac" Justin Long, this sort of feels like a throwback to the 70s/80s golden age of horror. Great creature design, great ending, and it somehow manages to turn a peppy 1930s song into an ominous harbinger of doom.



9) Dead Silence (2007)

The plot is a bit on the absurd side, even for a horror film: If you scream, the ghost of Mary Shaw, a ventriloquist who was killed by an angry mob years before, murders you by ripping your tongue out. Which raises all kinds of questions, like, what happens if she shows up and you don't scream? Do the two of you just glare angrily at one another until someone gets bored and leaves?

But the film's visuals are outstanding, and there's this feeling of dread in the small, cursed town that's present throughout the film, making the whole thing a fairly intense experience. You should probably see the twist ending coming a mile away, but if you're dumb like me, you didn't, and it turned out to be a really nifty surprise.



8) The Grudge (2004)
While I won't watch Japanese horror films, I guess I will watch their allegedly inferior American remakes. Seriously, I don't know why more horror fans didn't warm to this. I thought it was a pretty flawless ghost story that did an excellent job of conveying the terror of its characters, who are hopelessly fucked the moment they set foot in the cursed house. When KaDee Strickland gets so scared that she jumps into her bed and hides under the covers like a child (which obviously didn't turn out to be the smartest move), there was actual, palpable fear, something sorely missing from most horror films these days.

7) 2001 Maniacs (2005)
When a bunch of college students on their way to Spring Break end up stranded in a small, oddly old-fashioned Southern town that's celebrating its "Guts and Glory Jubilee," they're picked off one by one via some truly disgusting, depraved--albeit, darkly hilarious--methods, and added to the menu. Plus, the film has Robert Englund as the evil mayor, which obviously makes it at least ten times more awesome than it would have been otherwise.



6) 28 Weeks Later (2007)
I thought 28 Days Later was vastly overrated and not really even that great of a film in general, but the sequel more than makes up for it. You never get to see the aftermath of a zombie attack once it's been contained (probably because the zombies always seem to win, and yes, I know this isn't technically a zombie film, but it's close enough), so this was an interesting take on the story, even if the intentional Iraq War parallels are mildly uncomfortable.

5) The Descent (2005)
As a claustrophobic, I found the first half of the film, where the characters crawl and shimmy their way through incredibly tight passages--for fun, no less--infinitely more disturbing than when the creatures finally appear and start attacking everyone. But that's also when it really kicks into high gear, and Juno taking a pickaxe to the leg is one of my favorite "Oh, shit!" film moments in recent memory.



4) Dance of the Dead (2008)
You don't hear many horror films described as "charming," but that's really the word that comes to mind. Imagine if zombies attacked a John Hughes film. That's what Dance of the Dead is. Of all the films on this list, this is also the one most in need of a sequel, but so far, nothing seems to be on the horizon. I mean, you can't end a movie with a bus full of high school kids and their gym coach riding off to fight more zombies, and not tell us what happens next.



3) Drag Me to Hell (2009)
This is my favorite film of the year so far, marking Sam Raimi's triumphant return to the horror genre after wasting a decade on Spider-Man. The whole film is creepy as hell (after seeing it, I'm never going to even give a gypsy a dirty look), but still manages to work in the trademark Raimi humor. Months later, the ending still kind of freaks me out.



2) Hostel (2005)
Those who hate this film often refer to it as "torture porn." I also refer to it as that, but as a term of endearment. I mean...a girl gets half her face blowtorched off, and has one of her eyeballs dangling from its socket! How super awesome is that?

No matter how you feel about gore, this is one of the more unsettling movies I've seen, not because it's an especially plausible plot (though having said that, whenever someone I know travels to Eastern Europe, I do now tend to assume I'm never going to see them again), but because Eli Roth does such an amazing job of sucking you into this twisted world, where the wealthy get their kicks by torturing innocent kids, and the locals go along with it because A) They're getting paid, and B) What else is there to do in Slovakia? The sequel didn't really work, and the upcoming Eli Roth-less third installment is probably going to suck, but this is a true masterpiece of the genre.



1) Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (2006)
Regardless of whether it's making jokes about horror films, deconstructing horror films, or just being a horror film, there isn't a moment of this that isn't absolute genius.

A mocumentary about an aspiring killer as he prepares to join the upper echelon of movie slashers, right up there with Freddy, Jason, etc., there is literally nothing I don't like about this film, other than maybe that one of the deleted scenes on the DVD, which explains exactly how killers in horror films always manage to catch up to their victims, even though they're usually sprinting while the killers just sort of leisurely stroll after them, should have been in the final print.

That's how good this movie is: Even its deleted scenes are better than most whole films.

How not to say goodbye to your girlfriend

This morning at Metro Center, I was waiting for a train on the lower platform. Standing a few feet away was one of those somewhat overly-affectionate couples. Not making-out in public or anything, but all clingy and whispering to each other and occasionally giggling hysterically at something the other one said.

After a few minutes, the train to Largo arrived, they kissed each other goodbye, and the girl boarded the train. She sat down in a window seat, and looked out with a big smile on her face. She then gave her boyfriend a wave...only he didn't see it because he was looking down at his phone, reading a text or an email or something.

The train held there for about 30 seconds, and the whole time, the girl was just staring out the window like a puppy, trying to get him to make eye contact with her. A couple of times, her hand started to tentatively come up again, as if she was thinking about just waving frantically in the hopes that he'd notice the motion in his peripheral vision and glance up. But he was completely oblivious, focusing entirely on his phone, totally unaware that just twenty feet away, his girlfriend--or, hey, I don't know, casual acquaintance or one night stand or whatever--was looking as if her entire future happiness depended on him just noticing her and giving her a smile or a wave or just some sort of acknowledgement of her existence.

Then the doors closed, and the train pulled away, and the whole time, she never broke eye contact with the guy, and the guy never broke eye contact with his phone.

I don't know if these two crazy, mixed-up kids are going to make it or not, but I do know that you should probably give your girlfriend the courtesy of waiting until she's out of sight before putting her out of mind. Unless he was reading, like, an email relaying a really intriguing fantasy football trade offer. Then it's totally understandable.

Even if that wasn't the case in this instance, if she complains about what happened the next time they see each other, that's the excuse I'd use if I were him. If she's worth hanging onto, she'll understand. And if she's one of those women who doesn't get the importance of fantasy football...especially now, with bye weeks and trade deadlines approaching and getting squared away for the playoffs...well, why be with her in the first place?

Stop signs

Look, Dan Snyder is an insecure, petty, vindictive little man, and there's absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the Redskins' newfound interest in banning signs--any signs--at FedEx Field is due entirely to trying to silence disgruntled fans and their attacks on both the team and Snyder. (And Vinny, too, I suppose, although I'm guessing these days, there isn't a whole lot of love directed his way from Snyder, either.)

But here's the thing: Proving the old saying that even a stopped watch is right twice a day, the Redskins ban on people bringing signs into the stadium makes a lot of sense, and overall, is a good thing.

Forget all the free speech arguments. Partly because FedEx is private property, but mostly because...what's the point? It's not like the ability to hold up negative signs will somehow embarrass Snyder into making the team better. No, the bigger issue is the actual concept of bringing a sign to a football game in the first place.

Seriously, why do it?

To show your dedication to the team? You've probably paid around $100 for the right to sit in that godawful stadium, and you're wearing both a Chris Cooley jersey and a Redskins hat. We know you love the team. That poster board that you bought at Giant, and scrawled "REDSKINS #1!!!!" in red marker on the way to FedEx? Doesn't make you more of a fan. Or for that matter, a sign that says "Redskins Suck! Fire Dan Snyder!" won't make the Redskins stop sucking, nor will it suddenly inspire Dan Snyder to fire himself.

To get attention? Is there anything more annoying than a sign that was clearly and specifically designed to get someone on television? Like, if the game is being broadcast on NBC, the guy who has a sign that says something like this...

Now
Beat the
Cowboys!

...or "Bob Costas is The Man!" or whatever, knowing full well that the camera will find him, and he'll get his five seconds of dubious fame and glory? (Okay, that second one was a bad example. No one has ever brought a sign that said, "Bob Costas is The Man!" And no one ever will.)

Don't even get me started on these people:

The first guy who came up with this gimmick was insanely clever, and probably deserves a spot in the Football Hall of Fame. Everyone who's brought an oversized D and/or Fence to a game since then, just deserves scorn.

And while I don't go to enough Redskins games to have run into this problem myself, I have heard stories from others about how the idiot in front of them kept holding up his stupid sign, blocking their view, often at key moments in the game. On the other hand, I've never heard of anyone being "poked" by signs, although it wouldn't surprise me if that happened, too.

I hate siding with the Redskins on this, because this move was made for all the wrong reasons. And I suspect the league will step in at some point and tell Snyder to back down and allow fans to bring in signs once again. But until then, I'm glad this rule is in place. When I go to the Redskins/Saints game in a few weeks, I'll already be seated in an "obstructed view" part of the stadium. I don't need some superfan in front of me who believes his right to hold up a sign telling the world how great/lousy the Redskins are, supersedes my right to see what's going on on the field.

Saw VI

I've always had a love/hate relationship with the Saw films. On one hand, I really, really dig the idea of a horror movie franchise releasing a new installment every Halloween. I've just never been especially thrilled that Saw is that franchise. In fact, I hated the first one so much, I skipped Saw II in theaters, and didn't even bother watching it on DVD until months after its release. Saw V was an especially low point in the series, virtually collapsing under the weight of its own continuity, some weak characters, and a really lame twist at the end.

So I wasn't really looking forward to Saw VI, but I figured it couldn't be any worse than the last one, and by some stroke of luck, might even be good.

Instead, it was great.

I loved it. Saw VI is The Godfather II of the series. In one fell swoop, the filmmakers totally re-energized the franchise, and has me looking forward to October 2010 so I can see what happens next. I honestly can't say enough good things about this film. But I'll try.

Spoilers follow...

Let's get the political stuff out of the way first. After the past few months, how great and cathartic was this? I could watch nothing but movies where insurance company executives get slaughtered, and not get bored ever. (Republicans, always looking for a chance to whine about some perceived injustice, naturally feel differently.) It's a real credit to both the script and Peter Outerbridge's performance that by the end of the film, you're actually feeling sorry for William and believing that he's really changed. But at the same time, you're still kind of happy to see him pumped full of acid and dissolved from the inside out.

Anyway, there's really no use in discussing the absurdity of the plot at this point. Either you accept that Jigsaw is a mad genius capable of planning his games so far ahead that we're on Saw VI, even though he's been dead since Saw III, or you don't.

It's better to focus on how the filmmakers have tied everything together in a (mostly) logical, coherent manner. It's interesting to go back and watch the previous films to see how seemingly little throwaway bits now come into play. For example, the note that Hoffman leaves for Amanda? I just figured that Saw VI had somewhat awkwardly retconned it into the story. Then I caught the end of Saw IV on cable yesterday, and hey, guess what? There it is. This is the kind of stuff a show like Lost does all the time, but you hardly ever see in movies.

The traps in Saw II are still my favorite (the pit of dirty syringes, and that box Emmanuelle Vaugier sticks her hands into that slices her wrists open, still give me the willies), but these weren't bad. The first one, which I'll discuss more in a moment, is really good, and I liked the carousel, but I think they probably could have come up with something a little better than a shotgun blast to the chest.

The gore is awesome. Really, just great. One of the reasons I enjoy this kind of stuff so much is that I'm actually somewhat squeamish about it, especially anything that involves losing a body part. So the opening sequence, with the guy carving off pieces of his own stomach, and the woman sawing (and eventually hacking) her own arm off, really set my nerves on edge. Initially, I was sort of disappointed that it was all downhill from there in terms of the gross stuff, but I guess there's something to be said for the movie shooting most of its wad with the MPAA right off the bat, as opposed to stretching it out among several watered-down traps.

I suspect that a lot of the people who are raving about Zombieland and Paranormal Activity, likely look down on the Saw films. Which I guess is understandable, seeing as how, like I said, even I haven't been much of a fan over the years. But as far as I'm concerned, Saw VI is better than both those films combined. It's smarter than the former, and more intense than the latter. History will undoubtedly judge the other two films as superior, but the discerning horror fan knows better.

Script: A-
Acting: B+
Gore: A
Overall: A-

Week Seven NFL Picks

6-8 last week; 44-46 for the season

Green Bay at Cleveland (+9): Cleveland

San Francisco at Houston (-3): San Francisco

San Diego at Kansas City (+5.5): San Diego

Indianapolis at St. Louis (+14): Indianapolis

New England at Tampa Bay (+15): New England

Minnesota at Pittsburgh (-6): Minnesota

Buffalo at Carolina (-7): Carolina

New York Jets at Oakland (+6.5): Oakland

Chicago at Cincinnati (PK): Cincinnati

Atlanta at Dallas (-4.5): Atlanta

New Orleans at Miami (+6.5): New Orleans

Arizona at New York Giants (-7): New York

Philadelphia at Washington (+7): Washington

Panel of the Week

From DCU Halloween Special '09 #1:

How I learned to stop worrying and love the Metro

One morning a couple of weeks ago, I was at my bus stop waiting to be transported to the ol' salt mines, when down the street, I saw the bus approaching. Then a moment later, another bus of the same route right behind it.

As the buses approached, my fellow bus stop people and I could see that the first one was pretty full, with several passengers already standing in the aisle. So it was no surprise when it drove past us without stopping, as drivers on my route will often do this if they have a lot of passengers, and know there's another, emptier bus close behind. The second bus, we could tell, had barely any passengers on it.

Then the second bus blew past us as well.

There was a brief moment of Did that just happen?, followed by some muttering and grumbling, followed by really vivid revenge fantasies of sprinting to the next stop, pulling that second driver out of the bus, and beating the living shit out of him, while shouting, "Bet you wish you'd stopped for us now, don't you, motherfucker?", before hijacking the bus to go back and pick up my fellow stranded passengers. (At least, I'm assuming everyone else was having this fantasy. I know I was, and I'm a sane, rational person, and that's the kind of reaction any sane, rational person would have, right? Right?!?) Then we waited a whole 15 minutes before another bus arrived.

But as infuriating as that incident was, and as much as I've enjoyed warm, fuzzy thoughts of slowly torturing that second driver to death using a variety of medieval torture devices (again, as I'm sure all my fellow emotionally stable passengers have) I realize it was just an honest mistake. Maybe the driver was caught off-guard by the first bus not stopping for us, and couldn't hit the brakes in time. Maybe he was daydreaming. Maybe he just figured we were all standing at the bus stop for reasons totally unrelated to wanting to board a bus. Whatever. Mistakes happen.

But the bottom line is, something like that, and God only knows how many other fuck-ups Metro commits on any given day--and I think it's fair to mention that only a tiny percentage of those fuck-ups result in people getting killed--don't change the fact that Metro is still one of the best public transportation systems in the world.

So stories like this sort of annoy me. I know that in a perfect world, every Washingtonian would have a Metro stop right outside our front doors, fares would only be a dime, and trains would be 100 cars long so we could all stretch out. But it's not. It's an imperfect system that obviously needs improvement, but statements like "I hate Metro right now," and suggestions like "stop people from cursing and fighting," don't seem especially productive.

And then there's the constant obsession with increasing revenues, which some people seem to think would actually be spent improving service, and not just going towards Metro executives' bonuses or yet another useless consulting deal about how Metro can improve service.

David Alpert, who runs a blog about transportation and development, http://www.greatergreaterwashington.org, suggested that Metro consider a policy that imposes a higher, third fare level for riders at the peak of rush hour. Many are federal government workers, he said, whose commutes are subsidized.

So...hard working Americans see their fares go up, while tourists and various slackers and hippies who aren't even awake during the peak of rush hour don't pay anything extra? Come on. Also, additional fares just mean additional federal subsidies, which means additional taxes, so everyone's just going to end up paying more one way or another.

My advice is, stop stressing out about Metro. Most days, it's good. Some days, it's bad. And occasionally, you get carried off on a stretcher or in a body bag. It sucks, but that's the reality of public transportation. Deal with it.

Paranormal Activity

"They must have paid those people in the commercial to scream like that." - A fellow audience member as we left the theater.

If I'd seen Paranormal Activity at one of the midnight screenings a while back, I probably would have considered it a decent enough horror flick, and thought, "Good for the filmmakers. It'll be nice to see what they do with a budget of more than $10."

But unfortunately, I saw it this past weekend after a solid month of hype that would have one believe that Paranormal Activity is not only the scariest movie ever made, but maybe better than Jesus. Even sites that should know better are shamelessly gushing over it. It's similar to my experience with Zombieland, but about a hundred times worse, which made me about a hundred times more pissed off about how much this film doesn't live up to the hype.

Spoilers follow...

When I was a kid, I saw this TV movie that was also about a demonic force living in a house. In one scene, a guy is sitting in his living room when he turns around, and sees the demon, in the form of a little girl, walking down the stairs. Suddenly, the girl turns into this obese woman with some really grotesque make-up, tosses the guy around a bit, and then it fucking rapes him.

That's scary.

Compare that to Paranormal Activity: "Oh, no! The demon stole our sheets!" "It broke a picture frame!" "It dragged my girlfriend a few yards, and then let her go!" I kept waiting for the scares to come, and they didn't. Sure, there were plenty of moments where you get startled. But big deal. Any hack director can do that. Why do you think so many bad horror films have a scene where a cat jumps out at someone? At no point in this film did I feel even marginally scared.

To be fair, there are some genuinely tense moments. I can see why people who go into this movie wanting to be scared, are. When the lights suddenly turn on in another room, or when Micah discovers Katie out on the porch in a haze, or when the shadow passes by the door, it feels as though something really good and really terrifying is about to happen... But. It. Never. Does.

Lack of scares aside, here are my three biggest problems with the film:

1) The disclaimer at the beginning tells you right off the bat--heavily implies, anyway--that the characters are going to die. Well...okay. But it's hard to get emotionally invested in them, knowing this.

The gimmick worked in The Blair Witch Project, because that movie was all about slowly building a sense of dread as the characters came to realize what the audience already knew: That they were doomed. As far as other first-person camera horror films go, Cloverfield also ran such a disclaimer, and I'm pretty sure Quarantine did as well. Look, Hollywood, we know these films aren't actually real footage that you acquired, and decided to put up on the big screen. You don't need to let us know how they supposedly came to be in your possession.

2) Despite numerous teases, we find out nothing about the demon. It would have been nice to have gotten a little information about why all this was going on. And what was up with that photo in the attic? Presumably, the demon put it there. Was it carrying it around in its pocket this whole time since Katie's house burned down? Do demons have pockets?

3) Also like The Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity seems to come to this point where the filmmakers suddenly realize that after all the build-up, they need to deliver an ending, and the film basically just comes to an abrupt stop. And it sucks. Especially the awkward special effects employed. (Why would the demon bother bringing Micah all the way back upstairs to kill him?)

If I had to come up with one unqualified positive thing about the movie, I did like the psychic character, who was pretty much the inverse of every other psychic you see in horror films, as he was neither brave, nor especially helpful, and more or less left the main characters to fend for themselves. That was a nice touch.

Paranormal Activity isn't a bad movie, just an exceptionally average one that unfortunately, was blown way, way, way out of proportion by movie geeks and hipsters who are always looking to discover The Next Big Thing. You go into it with reasonable expectations, you'll be entertained. You go into it believing all this crap about it being one of the scariest movies ever, you're going to wonder when exactly Americans became such pussies.

Script: C
Acting: B-
Gore: D
Overall: C

Week Six NFL Picks

5-9 last week; 38-37 for the season

Houston at Cincinnati (-4): Cincinnati

Detroit at Green Bay (-14): Detroit

St. Louis at Jacksonville (-9.5): Jacksonville

Baltimore at Minnesota (-3): Minnesota

New York Giants at New Orleans (-3): New York

Cleveland at Pittsburgh (-14): Cleveland

Carolina at Tampa Bay (+3): Carolina

Kansas City at Washington (-6): Washington

Philadelphia at Oakland (+14): Philadelphia

Arizona at Seattle (-3): Arizona

Tennessee at New England (-9.5): New England

Buffalo at New York Jets (-9.5): New York

Chicago at Atlanta (-3.5): Atlanta

Denver at San Diego (-3.5): Denver

Panel of the Week

From The Asylum of Horrors #2:

Smells like tween spirit

Every now and then, I'll get a press release emailed to me and probably a few dozen other D.C. bloggers, asking if I'm interested in covering some upcoming event, and if so, would I like a DVD screener or a PR pack? Or press credentials? Or to interview someone associated with the whatever? And I ignore these, because I usually have no interest, plus there's that whole anonymous blogger thing I have working for me.

But as God as my witness, if I'd received an invitation to cover The First National Tween Girl Summit here in D.C., I would have happily come out of the blogger closet. It would have just been too awesome to pass up for something as trivial as my privacy and current and future employment prospects.

At first glance, it seems like this can't possibly be real. It's like someone found that golden ticket from The Last Action Hero, that blurs the line between reality and fantasy, and used it to make an Onion article or SNL sketch come to life. Because after all--and I mean no offense to any tween girls reading this--who could possibly care what tween girls think about anything?

Attendees spent the day brainstorming at circular tables, in rooms washed in pink lighting and the AllyKatzz logo of a slyly smiling cat. AK Tweens, the consulting arm of AllyKatzz, will sell a report based on observations culled from the summit for $12,500.

Ah. Well, that answers that question. I guess The First National Tween Girl Summit sounds better than The First National Tween Girl Marketing Survey.

If I had to guess the top three things tween girls would want to discuss at such a summit, it would have been: 1) Boys, 2) Other tween girls they hate, 3) A pop culture grab bag of stuff like Hannah Montana and High School Musical. There was also that report from a few months back that said a distressingly high number of teen girls blamed Rihanna for making poor Chris Brown hit her, so I guess they could have had a fascinating and provocative conversation about that.

But instead, the main topics seemed to be: 1) Sexting, 2) Bullying, and 3) Body Image. Leading the discussion about the last one was a "self-esteem guru" from Seventeen Magazine, which makes sense, because Seventeen plays no part whatsoever in making girls think they're required to be beautiful and glamorous to succeed in life.

But over in the exhibit hall, a fluffy sea of pink lounge furniture, two girls play a video game called "Charm Girls Club," made by conference sponsor Electronic Arts. The players frantically wave a Wii remote at the screen, where gorgeous avatars are busy styling their hair. The winner is the player who teases the virtual locks into the highest bouffant.

The hair is very . . . empowered?

Writer Monica "The Web Hostess" Hesse appears to be skeptical of the Wii as an instrument of female empowerment, but I disagree. I mean, the game itself is obviously useless, but girls who are good at video games will be more attractive to boys. And striving for that is the very definition of female empowerment, isn't it? Wait...or is that the exact opposite of female empowerment? Honestly, it's hard to keep track. All I know is that I'm in the key marketing demographic of of "Males, Age 18-34" which means I'm always empowered. Yay!

Tweens' depiction in the modern culture is "amazingly insulting," says Weiner. "They're not bad Disney stereotypes. They care about health care. They care about the environment." However, "tabloid coverage of tweens has become very in fashion." They're often portrayed as "entitled, vapid and self-absorbed."

Ha! Please. I'm sorry, but of course tweens--girls and boys--are entitled, vapid and self-absorbed.

I mean, when I was that age, I cared about stuff. You know, in an abstract sort of way. So long as it didn't interfere with my comic book or Nintendo time. The fact that a few kids started a charity that rescues enslaved children in Ghana (and really, wouldn't that make for a great Disney film if the tweens themselves were the ones parachuting into Ghana and doing the rescuing?) only means that there are a few outliers among millions, not that tweendom is somehow more sophisticated than it was back in the 90s.

To put it another way: You give the average tween girl the choice between universal health care and a ten-minute make-out session with Zac Efron, 99 out of 100 will chose the latter. (But to be fair to tweens, given the choice, most grown-up women would likely make that exact same choice.)

Even given my earlier plea, I figure my chances of getting invited to the Second National Tween Girl Summit are somewhere between slim and none, so I'd like to request now for this to be streamed live online next year. Tweens all around America...hell, all around the world...need to see this. But mostly, I need to see it, because even after reading a Washington Post article about it and writing this blog post, I'm still not entirely convinced it actually exists.

2009 Baltimore Comic-Con

Comic book geeks. What are you going to do?

After much hemming and hawing, I ended up going to the convention yesterday.

I was a bit surprised walking into the Baltimore Convention Center, as the last time I was here, Hall A was the main entrance to the convention. You can't really make it out in this photo, but inside, there were dozens of people doing group cardio or jazzercise or...something involving spandex and hopping along to music. Apparently, there was some sort of physical fitness convention that was also being held over the weekend. I started to play a game where I tried to figure out which people in the lobby were there for the comic book convention and which ones were there for the physical fitness convention, but after just a few seconds, I realized that I'd invented the easiest game ever, got bored, and headed into the less physically taxing convention.

And. It. Was. Glorious...

Yeah, remember that time Merlin the Mad attacked the Capitol? But Thor was there to stop him? That was pretty cool. I think Jim Vance covered it back in the day.

Anyway, here's a recap of the more memorable aspects of my day:

Neal Adams

As I said last week, Neal Adams is one of the all-time great Batman artists. What's more, he drew Batman #251, which I consider to be one of the best Joker stories ever. And on Saturday, I found myself thinking, "Man, I wish I had a copy of that issue so I could get him to sign it." A moment later, I found myself thinking, "Retard, you're going to a comic book convention. You can buy one there."

After a bit of searching, I found one for the not unreasonable price of $30. Good condition, too. So I took it over to Adams's table, where a sign informed people that it'd be $5 a signature, and if they wanted their picture taken with Neal Adams, that would set them back $20. (Just as I was wondering who the hell would ever pay $20 to have their picture taken with Neal Adams, some guy ahead of me in line enthusiastically said he would. And did.)

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I always think it's pretty distasteful for someone to charge their fans for an autograph. In fact, this is the first time I can ever remember it happening at the Baltimore Comic-Con. On the other hand, it's not like Adams does a lot of work these days, so I guess he needs the money to come from someplace. I just had two things I wanted signed, so it only cost me $10. But I feel bad for anyone who brought a big stack of old Batman or Green Lantern comics for him to sign, only to discover it would cost them a couple of hundred bucks.

But whatever. I got the comic and the autograph. And once I get Denny O'Neil to sign it as well, this sucker is getting slabbed and hung up on the wall.

Rob Liefeld

I'm willing to declare that Rob Liefeld is...let's say, 10% less douchey than he was the last time I saw him there. Oh, he was still plenty douchey. But at least this year, I got my Hawk & Dove TPB signed. (Incidentally, Karl Kesel, the writer of said TPB who was also at the con, couldn't have been nicer. Class act all the way.)

Anyway, I got in Liefeld's line just a few moments after he sat down, which was good, since just like last time, it wasn't long before he stopped signing to work on sketches. The guy a few spots ahead of me handed him his copy of New Mutants #98 to sign, which is the first appearance of Deadpool, and worth a decent amount of money. Liefeld then explains to the guy that he's not signing that particular issue for anyone unless they buy one of his $20 prints.

Which is such bullshit.

This isn't anything like the Neal Adams situation. This is just greed. (And frankly, even if Adams was just being greedy also, he's earned that right a hell of a lot more than Liefeld has.) Liefeld's signature would make an already valuable comic considerably more valuable, and I guess if Rob's not going to get paid, you're not going to, either.

Oh, right, I said he was less douchey, didn't I? The guy ahead of me handed Liefeld four comics to sign. "I have a two book limit," he mumbled, before turning around to have a brief conversation with someone else in the Image booth. When he finished, he noticed that his line consisted of me and the guy in front of me, and I guess realized how dumb declaring a two book limit was, and said he'd sign all the guy's comics.

So there you go. Rob Liefeld: 10% less douchey than he was four years ago.

Celebrity Cameo

I had no idea 30 Rock's Scott Adsit was a comic book geek until I saw him walking around the floor, but a Google search reveals that he's apparently a fucking hardcore comic book geek who goes to a lot of these things. Good for him.

Half Time

Eventually, I had to get some food and fresh air, so I headed over to the Inner Harbor. I think I could live in Baltimore if I never had to leave that 10-20 block downtown radius. It's really gorgeous, and I should get up there more often.

As an added bonus, there was a guy on a unicycle juggling fire...

...and zombies.

For the record, if people want to dress up as zombies, that's fine, I guess, but if someone sees them, doesn't realize they're just pretending, and then shoots them in the head to stop their rampage, I don't think that person should go to prison.

Artists' Alley

I thought it was slim pickings among the independent publishers this year, but--speaking of zombies--I did find one thing I liked:

Jesus Hates Zombies is the best title of a book that I bought yesterday. Jungle Women vs. Dracula is the best title of a book that I didn't buy.

Holy Grail

Almost every comic book reader has a holy grail. One issue that he either wants to own but can't afford, or simply can't find. My holy grail was in the later category. I've been looking for a copy of World's Finest #275 for over 20 years. I don't mean like, really looking for it. I never checked eBay, and it's not like I was calling around to various stores across the country in order to find it. But since I was a kid, every time I'd go to a store or convention, I'd always check back issue bins, but could never find it. Until now!

The Superman/Batman story, I didn't care about, but there were a few back-up stories that ended in cliffhangers that I read when I was 7 or 8, and have been dying to know how they ended ever since.

Was it everything I'd hoped it would be? Eh...no, not really. I mean, I'm glad I finally read it, but with each one of the stories, the first parts I read as a kid were infinitely better than the conclusions I read as an adult. Ah, well. The real tragedy is that now I need a new holy grail.

Costumes

The day ended with the costume contest. I'll be honest: I hate costume contests. I get that they're a cherished tradition at these events, but even I have my limits when it comes to this kind of stuff.

There were also a few Jokers, Harly Quinns, and Poison Ivies, as well as a Hawkgirl, a Scarlet Witch, and a dreadlocked Darth Maul, among others, and probably the best costume I saw all day, just some guy wearing a cardboard sign around his neck that read "Supervillain in Disguise."

There were some fairly risque costumes, as well. A Wonder Woman, a Wonder Girl, a White Queen, a She-Ra, and of course, a Slave Girl Leia. I imagine it must be awkward to walk around a convention in that outfit when there are other Slave Girl Leias around, but when you're the only one, it must be really awkward. To her credit, she more than had the body to pull it off, although I don't remember Princess Leia having quite so many tattoos.

(In case you're wondering why there aren't any photos of those costumes, I just couldn't bring myself to take them. Doing so secretly would have been creepy, and even though if you ask someone in costume if you can take their photo, convention etiquette seems to dictate that they pose for you, that somehow felt like it would have been even more creepy.)

Anyway, a great time was had by all, and I'll probably go back next year, as opposed to taking another three-year hiatus. You should, too, even if it's just to people watch. Because there is no place on earth better for people watching than a comic book convention.

Week Five NFL Picks

4-10 last week; 33-33 for the season

Minnesota at St. Louis (+10.5): Minnesota

Dallas at Kansas City (+7.5): Dallas

Washington at Carolina (+4): Washington

Tampa Bay at Philadelphia (-15.5): Tampa Bay

Oakland at New York Giants (-15.5): New York

Cleveland at Buffalo (-6): Cleveland

Cincinnati at Baltimore (-8.5): Baltimore

Pittsburgh at Detroit (+10.5): Pittsburgh

Atlanta at San Francisco (-2.5): Atlanta

New England at Denver (-3): Denver

Houston at Arizona (-5.5): Houston

Jacksonville at Seattle (-1.5): Jacksonville

Indianapolis at Tennessee (-4): Tennessee

New York Jets at Miami (+2): New York

Panel of the Week

From The Boys #35:

Pros and Comic-Cons

Every year about this time, I have a monumental decision to make: Do I or do I not go to the Baltimore Comic-Con?

For the past three years, the answer has been "I do not." It's not that I didn't want to go, it's just that various circumstances conspired against me, so that when convention weekend rolled around, my response was pretty much just "Meh." Also, there really weren't any guests I especially wanted to see. At least, not ones that I hadn't already. I mean, I love Mark Waid, but he's already signed everything of his I own. And while I'll go to a panel if it's on a topic I'm interested in, they're not much of a draw for me, especially given that anything of interest that's said will be recapped on Comic Book Resources or Newsarama within a few hours.

This year I'm leaning towards going, but likely won't decide until I actually wake up on Saturday or Sunday morning. But here are the factors influencing my decision:


Pro: It's a comic book convention!

I'm sure there are some among you who would rather be waterboarded for an hour than go to a comic book convention. But for the rest of us, it's a lot of fun. You get to meet a lot of creators you respect (or, in the very least, creators whose signature can make your comics increase in value exponentially), you get to fill in holes in your collection, you get the chance to try new stuff you may not have ever seen before, and you mainly just get to soak in the atmosphere.

It's also really cool to see the rare and significant comics that dealers bring to high profile shows like this. The classic issues from the Golden and Silver Ages that are works of art unto themselves, and are priced like it.

(Fun fact: Last week on The Big Bang Theory, Sheldon lost a wager to Wolowitz, and as a result, had to give him his copy of The Flash #123. That issue is worth over $20,000 in near-mint condition, and because it was Sheldon, you know it was in at least that. Sheldon was far more upset at losing the comic itself than he was losing something worth that much money, so my question is, is Sheldon secretly wealthy or is he simply unconcerned with the monetary value of things?)

Con: It's a comic book convention...in Baltimore

I wish someone would step up and get the ball rolling on a D.C. convention. I mean, once you get into Baltimore and have found (somewhat) reasonably priced parking, it's okay, but the drive up there is a pain in the ass. More so this year than in the past, as there will be a lot of roads closed on Saturday because of the Baltimore Marathon.


Pro: Comic book geeks

Let the rest of the country argue about whether we need universal health care or if Roman Polanski should be allowed to rape 13 year-old girls. Comic book geeks have more important things to discuss. If I asked a co-worker or non-comic book reading friend what he thought of Blackest Night, I'd get, at best, a blank look. And at worst, a look of sheer contempt and/or pity. But there, among our own kind, geeks are free to have such conversations without fear of persecution or mockery.

Con: Comic book geeks

While I love them, I'm not going to lie: Sometimes they can be an annoying and insufferable lot. Also, occasionally unhygienic. And, such as the guy who was in line in front of me a few years ago to get George Perez's autograph, and had a sketchbook full of provocative drawings of Sheena, Queen of the Jungle by various artists that he wanted Perez to contribute to, a little bit creepy.


Pro: Pros

The Baltimore Comic-Con has always had a good group of guests, and this year is no different. These are the ones I'm most interested in seeing, either because I'm a fan of theirs, or just kind of a, "Oh, hey, it's so-and-so," bit of curiosity:

Neal Adams: Batgasm #1! Arguably the most definitive Batman artist of all time.

Brian Bendis: I'm not about to bring my entire collection of Powers and Ultimate Spider-Man TPBs to Baltimore for him to sign, but I'd certainly bring a few.

J. Scott Campbell: After a great run on Gen 13, where he was rarely if ever late, he launched his own series, Danger Girl, the ads for which guaranteed that it would always ship on time...only to release something like six or seven issues over the span of three years. I think I still have some of his Gen 13 stuff, but I'm not sure it's worth the hassle of bringing it with me.

Frank Cho: Used to write and draw Liberty Meadows, one of the best and most ground-breaking newspaper comic strips in years. Now, he mainly draws comic books that grown men masturbate to. But the Liberty Meadows TPBs are aces.

J.M. DeMatteis: Together with Keith Giffen, he turned Justice League International into one of the unquestioned classics of the modern era of comics.

Evan Dorkin: It's always really cool when you can pick up a TPB of something you've never read and get it signed. That's how I got turned onto Robert Kirkman's stuff a few years ago at the con, buying the first TPBs of The Walking Dead and Invincible from him. I've always meant to read Milk and Cheese, and this would be as good a time as any.

Steve Englehart: Batgasm #2! The man who gave us Joker Fish, as well as some of the best Batman stories of the 1970s.

Tony Harris: Man, if James Robinson, who was originally scheduled to appear, hadn't cancelled, this would have been an absolute home run. How often do you get the chance to have the original creative team of Starman sign your stuff? But I'm certainly not going to turn my nose up at just 1/2 of that team. Oh, and there's also Ex Machina.

Karl Kesel: If I had my collection handy, I'd get my whole run of Hawk & Dove signed. As it stands, I'd settle for him signing just the TPB of the original mini-series.

Jerry "The King" Lawler: I don't really get this one, but okay.

Ron Marz: Back in the 90s, he wrote the infamous storyline where Green Lantern went insane, killed a ton of people, and was replaced by a more demographically appealing (i.e., younger) character. Marz reportedly got death threats over this. Personally, I thought the man deserved an Eisner for finally making Hal Jordan interesting.

Alex Robinson: Everyone should get Box Office Poison. It's maybe the best graphic novel I've ever read.

Con: Pros

Rob Liefeld: Any time you meet an artist who you like or whose work you respect, you run the risk of them turning out to be a jackass. I don't especially like Liefeld or his art, but I did have a couple of things I wanted to get signed the last time I went to the con.

You'd think that someone who had managed to alienate a fairly significant number of both readers and people in the industry by just his mid-20s, would try to be a little more personable when he got older. But between him selling sketch books with an inappropriately dressed Wonder Girl on the cover, his ignoring the people waiting in line to get their stuff signed so he could concentrate on doing far more lucrative commissioned drawings, and the fact that he was chatting on his cell phone while doing said drawings (it held up to his ear by one of his lackeys), personable is not the word I'd use.

After waiting a half-hour or so, I eventually gave up. And whenever I strolled by his table throughout the day, he was still sketching, and there were still people in line to have their stuff signed. Ass.

Anyway, if I end up going, I'll post the recap next week, along with any photos I take. (The photos will be especially great if I go on Sunday. Why? Two words: Costume. Contest.)

Zombieland

From now on, I'm going to stay the hell off Twitter the weekend a movie comes out that I'm really looking forward to, because if it's even halfway decent, people on Twitter are guaranteed to overpraise the fuck out of it. And then when I go see it, it's inevitably a letdown.

In 2009, there have been two such films: Star Trek and Zombieland. If Twitter users and their overly-enthusiastic tweets were to be believed, both ranked among the greatest cinematic achievements of all time. And they don't. They really, really don't. Especially in the case of Zombieland.

Spoilers follow...

I mean, it's not a bad movie. I liked it. But I liked it more for the novelty of it being a zombie-comedy, as opposed to it being either a good zombie film or a good comedy. (And as far as zombie-comedies go, Shaun of the Dead was roughly a hundred times better.)

In particular, the zombie parts felt really flat once the film gets past the opening credits and Columbus's list of rules. At no point, not even during the climax, did I feel like I was seeing anything that, as a big fan of zombie films, was especially memorable. In fact, for a movie called Zombieland, the zombies often felt somewhat extraneous to the plot, like they were just tossed in whenever the filmmakers felt we needed a break from Woody Harrelson's schtick.

The comedy bits work somewhat better, although even there, I don't think the film has a single really big laugh in it. The closest it gets is Bill Murray's cameo, which, while great, was again more the novelty of seeing a Bill Murray cameo than anything he actually said or did.

I think my biggest problem is that so much of the film's plot felt contrived. The girls rob the first survivors they meet just because. They're on their way to Pacific Playland just because. Tallahassee obsesses over Twinkies just because. (And there's no way you can convince me that in a cross-country trip, they wouldn't have passed hundreds of stores that had Twinkies in stock.) A zombie road trip film isn't a bad idea, but it could have been executed a lot better.

The real strength of the film isn't the zombies or the plot, it's the characters. I thought the "no names" gimmick was sort of dumb, but Harrleson was mostly a blast, and with Columbus, I appreciated finally having a character in a zombie film who acts like he's actually seen a zombie film. And of course, it goes without saying that Emma Stone is...wait, let me do a quick age check on IMDB...yeah, okay, I'm good...smoking hot.

Everything about the film is good. It's just that given the premise, the really kick-ass trailer, and those damn Twitter users, I was expecting great. Zombieland is a lot of things, but great isn't one of them. Hopefully, there'll be a sequel where this will be rectified.

Script: B-
Acting: B+
Gore: C+
Overall: B-

Weekend Beer-Off! U.S.A. vs. Germany

Beers
Brand/Brewery

Dundee Oktoberfest--Dundee Brewing Company
Celebrator Doppelbock--Privatbrauerei Franz Inselkammer

Dundee Oktoberfest: I'm one of the apparently few people in the world who doesn't get the appeal of pumpkin ale. So when I saw this on the shelf--a beer called Oktoberfest with a couple of pumpkins on the label--I almost passed it up for obvious reasons. But upon closer inspection, it turns out it wasn't a pumpkin ale, so all was good and I grabbed it.

I'm glad I gave it a shot. It's not something I'd want to drink a lot of in one sitting, but it has a nice bready taste that's kind of pleasant. Not much head, either, which most beer connoisseurs would probably consider a minus, but as someone who doesn't like drinking foam, I quite liked.

Taste: B-
Label: B+
Appearance: A
Overall: B+

Celebrator Doppelbock: First, let me mention that this beer comes with a tiny plastic goat, which brought me a completely irrational sense of joy. It makes me think that more beers should come with a toy surprise. They'd be like Cracker Jacks for adults. The goat will be hanging by my computer until I get bored of it.

Anyway, this is a very strong, very good beer. It has kind of a creamy, weird coffee-ish, chocolate-ish taste, and this is one of the few beers I've had that has an aftertaste that's actually really pleasant. Also, I don't typically smell my beers, but this one has a nice aroma. I may keep the empty bottle next to my goat, and just take a whiff every now and then until it fades.

Taste: A-
Label: A-
Appearance: B
Overall: A-

Winner: Germany!

Week Four NFL Picks

10-6 last week; 29-19 for the season

Detroit at Chicago (-10): Detroit

Cincinnati at Cleveland (+6): Cincinnati

Oakland at Houston (-8.5): Houston

Seattle at Indianapolis (-10.5): Indianapolis

Tennessee at Jacksonville (+3): Tennessee

New York Giants at Kansas City (+8.5): New York

Baltimore at New England (-2): Baltimore

Tampa Bay at Washington (-7.5): Washington

Buffalo at Miami (+1): Buffalo

New York Jets at New Orleans (-7): New York

Dallas at Denver (+3): Denver

St. Louis at San Francisco (-9.5): St. Louis

San Diego at Pittsburgh (-6.5): Pittsburgh

Green Bay at Minnesota (-3.5): Green Bay

Panel of the Week

From G.I. Joe: Cobra: Special #1:

Die Hard: Year One #1

"New York in the seventies was a scary place. Kind of a theme park for urban terror. And there was nothing got a New Yorker's rocks off like scaring the hell out of tourists." - John McClane

I tend to avoid comic books based on movies or TV shows like the plague. They're rarely any good for any number of reasons, usually having to do with the writer just not getting the character(s), or worse, bending them to fit his vision of what they should be. I'm also not a big fan of prequels, whether it's a comic, movie, book, etc.

But a story about John McClane as a rookie cop in 1970s New York? Written by Howard Chaykin? Come on, how can that not be good?

Well, having McClane appear in only a third of the story doesn't help.

Granted, as with all first issues, there's a lot of set-up, as well as a lot of supporting characters to introduce. These include a couple of corrupt cops, a shady guy in running shorts, an extremely unpleasant wealthy couple, and a witness to a brutal murder. These are a lot of characters to cram into a 22-page comic, thus reducing America's greatest action character to little more than a brief sequence where he chases down a pickpocket. He also narrates the story, but there's nothing especially John McClane-ish about it, so a lot of the narration seems like it could have come from any generic police officer.

Presumably, we're going to see a lot more of McClane in the next few issues, and it's not like I was expecting him to take down a bunch of terrorists right off the bat, but it might have been nice to get a bit more of him here.

On the plus side, I really liked the art. The characters look great, and while I have no idea what New York City circa 1976 looked like due to not existing yet, this at least feels authentic.

This wasn't the most promising start to a mini-series, especially one that potentially has major crossover appeal to people who generally don't read comics, but I have faith it'll get better. Boom! is arguably the best comic book publisher in the business right now, Howard Chaykin is Howard Chaykin, and it just seems inconceivable that a comic book called Die Hard: Year One couldn't be anything other than awesome.