Featured article: "Sucker Punch: Who's the sucker?"

Article link: http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/03/28/sucker-punch-whos-the-sucker/

I'm normally the last person to defend Entertainment Weekly critic Lisa Schwarzbaum. I'd say about 8 times out of 10 she phones in her reviews. But I like this article because it points out something that has bugged me for a while - this expectation for fanboy movies. There's an assumption that anything based on a comic book, graphic novel, or (these days) video game should do well in theaters. The movie gets hyped to the skies by fanboys excited for the adaptation and the movie kills at Comic-Con. But the rave reviews from the fanboy crowd don't often translate into huge numbers at the box office, and executives are dumbfounded. "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World," "Watchmen," and "Kick-Ass," among others, had this problem.

Lisa goes on to challenge the limp statement that "the movie is meant for fanboys," and therefore should be held to lower standards? One commentor rightly deems them the "if you don't like it, you just don't GET it" crowd. She also brings up the fact that many people think she didn't like the movie just because she's an old woman, while the movie is meant for young boys. Now, many times her reviews smack of a hidden bias. Some of her reviews have spent the entire paragraph or two talking about something unrelated to the movie or complaining unnecessarily about the genre, clearly signaling how she felt about the movie anyway. But in this case, I have to take issue. I sincerely believe that anyone can enjoy a good movie, no matter the genre and no matter their race, gender, age, etc. Or, at the very least, a person can admit when a movie is good even if it's not their favorite genre. I also believe that critics can trash a movie but still admit when it's fun or a guilty pleasure nonetheless.

Professional critics get an unfair amount of criticism as snobs and haters, but if a hundred movie critics on Rotten Tomatoes say a movie is terrible, I'm inclined to believe they're not just hatin' and the movie really does have some problems. There are quite a few critics who are snobs and won't admit when a comic book movie or horror flick is good, but they are few and a critical reader can see through that to the fair reviews.

"Kick-Ass" was a great fanboy movie and managed a 76% on Rotten Tomatoes, which was that low mainly for the gratuitous profanity and graphic violence. But it still got a majority of good reviews because it was a good movie. You can say it's not your thing because of the violence, swearing, or you just don't like comic book movies, but that doesn't mean it's a bad movie because it's 'not your thing.' Likewise, just because a critic gives a negative review of a movie, don't assume it's because it's 'not their thing.' It's easier to criticize the people whose profession it is to put their opinion out into the public, but it's not the critics who make those movies bomb at the box office. Maybe fanboys should think about that for a second.

Panic! at the Disco releases "Vices & Virtues" and embraces their old sound

I don't readily admit this in public, but I really love Panic! at the Disco. I liked their bizarre version of emo quirkiness on A Fever You Can't Sweat Out and I loved the departure into something new for Pretty. Odd. Their second album was completely underrated, although it's not difficult to see why. Their original fans were pissed that they didn't make Emo Quirk part 2, and everyone else had already written them off as another dime-a-dozen, whiny, wanna-be-significant, Top 40, rock-pop band. Yes, they were kind of Fall Out Boy-lite, but they had their own style and completely owned that second album.

The future of Panic! at the Disco was left uncertain after the departure of Ryan Ross and Jon Walker, leaving only Brendon Urie and Spencer Smith. The latter two kept on under the original name, which raised the question of how much they would still sound like their old selves. With Urie still around, the lead vocals still sound the same. But with the exit of two members, Urie had to take over writing lyrics. I was most disheartened by a quote from Wikipedia, saying that "Urie wanted the band to explore a more polished pop sound, while Ross — and, by extension, Walker — was interested in making retro-inspired rock." It looks like the two people primarily responsible for the new sound were the two guys who took off.

Well, upon listening to their new release, if you liked early Panic, you'll say it was a return to form. If, like me, you're one of the twelve other people who liked their new sound, you might be a little disappointed. Vices & Virtues is very radio friendly, and a few singles from the album should do very well. I don't mean that as an insult, but just a statement of fact that a lot of the personality Panic originally had is rather sanitized. I didn't need another Pretty. Odd. full of baroque pop, but I wouldn't mind a song or two in the kinetic style of their debut. Several times while listening to their new songs, I couldn't help but think they would sound exactly the same if sung by Fall Out Boy. They're more generic in that kind of way. Also, I hate to say it, but you can feel the change in writers for their lyrics. They've lost a lot of the wit that their early work had.

This isn't to say that the album is a complete failure. I just wanted to establish that this isn't anything like their previous work. It's closer in spirit to A Fever You Can't Sweat Out, but not by much. There's nothing particularly unique about their new music. They're decent, solid, catchy songs that could have been made by any band out there. Panic! at the Disco has grown, but in my opinion, they've grown in the wrong direction. The songs may be more polished, but so much so that they've lost their distinctive glimmer.

"Nearly Witches (Ever Since We Met)" has an appealing offbeat-ness to it, but it feels like a radio-friendly version of one of their early frenetic, bizarre songs. For the heartfelt song, instead of "She Had the World," we get "Always." Instead of mellow songs like "Behind the Sea" or "Northern Downpour," we get catchy radio singles like "Oh Glory" and "Let's Kill Tonight." Their first single, "The Ballad of Mona Lisa," is enjoyable, but once again, feels like their old style really watered down. "Memories," likewise, is just as catchy as a lot of the other tracks, but doesn't stick with you or make much of an impact. In my humble opinion, "Hurricane" is their best new song. Sure to be commercially successful, it's got the energy that made their old stuff so instantly enticing.

I still have faith in Panic! at the Disco, though. They can blend the old sound with a fresh style, and still make it radio friendly. "Mad as Rabbits" and "That Green Gentleman (Things Have Changed)" from Pretty. Odd. are great examples of combining all those parts efficiently. This is Urie's first experience being the one in charge of lyrics, so hopefully he'll get better with practice and bring us some more daring music next time. I know the public didn't like Pretty. Odd. as much as the critics largely did, but while they don't have to go retro, they shouldn't be afraid to experiment with different sounds again. Vices & Virtues isn't bad, it's just not Panic! At the Disco as we know and love them.

"The Wire" as a Victorian novel - great television as great literature

("Omar comin', yo!")

Two writers decided to turn the late great crime drama "The Wire" into a Victorian novel a la Charles Dickens complete with illustrations. I don't know who these two people are, but I want to hug them both and then beg them to actually finish and publish it. Their blog post about it is fantastically clever and hilarious, analyzing the series as if it were a piece of literature. It's a long, intelligent post about a show that deserves its critical praise as one of the best TV shows of all time. Discussing it as a novel and comparing it to other literary works just shows even more how smart and well written this show was.

The highlight of their post is the pages they post from their 'novel' that recounts the famous scene from the first season where McNulty and Bunk visit an old crime scene and try to act out the past events to figure out what happened. What's so special about that, you ask? The only lines they utter are various versions of 'fuck,' totaling to around 37 uses of the word. You won't see that on "CSI!" (But you will see it embedded below. [Warning: adult content]). If you don't get the point of the scene, just click on the video and read the youtube comments that explain where it came from.

Assorted bits of TV news: "Southland," "Torchwood," "Lights Out," and "Fringe"

- "Southland" got renewed for another season. I still argue it's one of the best shows on TV, certainly one of the best cop dramas, and it's never too late to get onboard. It's just procedural enough to jump in at any time, but not so much that it's repetitive and boring.

- FX's show "Lights Out" just got canceled. Critically acclaimed, but with a tiny audience, the news isn't shocking. I never tuned in since sports dramas aren't really my thing, but I still mourn for quality dramas in this reality show-centric world. It's also a sad thing to think about, but I'm just happy when a show makes it to a whole season before getting canceled. At least there's that.

- "Fringe" keeps bouncing up and down and all over the place in the ratings, making it increasingly difficult to discern its chances at renewal. Looks like that one's going to be a nail-biter. [UPDATE: "Fringe" has been renewed for another season! I thought it would be a last-minute announcement, but apparently FOX decided to be kind for once. For once, FOX is learning from their past mistakes.]

- "Torchwood: Miracle Day" will premiere on Friday, July 8th on STARZ. An intriguing premise, a slightly more international setting, and a buzz-worthy new cast is making for a very hyped fourth season. If it's half as good as "Children of Earth," "Torchwood" will be sitting pretty this year.

Movie Night: "Jennifer's Body"

The hottest girl in high school gets possessed by a demon and goes on an all-male killing spree. This idea could have been turned into B-movie gold or, in the right hands, a seriously scary statement on feminism in some way. Instead, it's one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
It's kind of sad when you think about how good this movie could have been. But the movie it was turned into didn't take advantage of the promising concept in any way for even a second. At an hour and 42 minutes, it somehow felt 30 minutes long. I guess that says something remotely positive, considering it's incredibly boring as well as bad. They bring on the demonic nastiness really early on and not a whole lot happens. You know the short plot synopsis, you know exactly what's going to happen. Hell, any ambiguity about the ending is spoiled by the opening scene.

Character development? Forget about it. No one was going to this movie for the characters anyway. Maybe some came to hear the words of "Juno" writer Diablo Cody, but the only ones I can imagine liking it in any way are the ones who came to look at Megan Fox for two hours. She looks hot, but she doesn't get much help from the script that thinks sexiness is walking in slow-mo down the hall of a high school in tight clothing. Not that the movie would have been much better with a good script - Megan Fox absolutely cannot act. The whole time she has a 'James Franco-at-the-Oscars' kind of expressionless boredom. Amanda Seyfried, while an actual actress, can't do much to salvage the crappy material she's given. Her character's name is Needy, which should tell you just how subtle this movie is. We know she's the ugly girl because she's wearing glasses and has frizzy hair. Adam Brody, as the indie rocker who sacrifices the titular body to Satan, is the only one who can manage to put some life into things. He's the only one who looks like he's having fun, but unfortunately he isn't in much of the film.

I'm a person who really enjoyed "Juno," in spite of its hipster identity. But Diablo Cody might have peaked there, because "Jennifer's Body" sounds like it was written by a teenage shut-in trying to imitate her style. Forget about the way the characters talk, no one acts like a normal human would. There was hardly a moment while watching that I didn't have multiple questions running through my head wondering "why did she do that?" and "who would react like that?" The dialogue isn't as slang heavy as "Juno" but rather quirky and synthetically hip. Slang heavy or no, the synthetic hip worked in "Juno" - it does not work here. What's hilarious is the hipster identity is countered with a very commercial setting as every bedroom is covered in poster's of actual, famous modern alternative bands. The soundtrack, while largely indie in style, is completely out of tone with the rest of the movie. But then, the movie never quite makes up its mind what it wants to be. A horror-comedy? A cheesy indulgence? A girl-on-girl guilty pleasure? A tongue-in-cheek comment on high school sexuality? At its core it seems to want to be a horror movie before anything else, but I've seen scarier movies on Lifetime around Halloween. It can't even handle horror, as I found out at its utterly ridiculous ending. It's like they realized they spoiled the real ending of the movie and decided to tack on a bizarre plot twist that would make any horror fan recoil with stunned laughter.

I watch so many movies it would be exhausting to write reviews of all of them, but I haven't seen a movie that elicited such a completely negative reaction from me since "Crash." Not that I completely loathed that one; I mainly took issue with the critics fawning over it like it actually said something new and smart about race relations. But as for "Jennifer's Body," I truly did hate it. It was two hours poorly spent and I would not recommend it to a soul, even if your intentions are shallow. If all you want from this movie is Megan Fox, I feel I should point out that the R rating is definitely not for nudity.

My grade: F